The cult of scepticism can't take criticism

I've been listening to several "skeptic" (US spelling - urgh!) podcasts over the last few months. I really enjoy Skeptoid, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe and the SGU 5x5. Each of these, along with DrKarl adequately provide my weekly dose of reality science.

I have also been listening to The SkepticZone but have been disappointed with how they present the show and discuss topics. There is a lot of inside jokes, sarcasm and unnecessary banter that comes off as ridicule, derision, condescending and even contempt.

While some may find this amusing, I feel that it simply shames and mocks anyone who happens to believe the "woo" (what the sceptics like to call pseudo science) rather than having any real educational benefit. Given that these folk profess to be 'educators' they seem to know nothing about pedagogy. I doubt that anyone could 'learn' in such an environment.

I finally decided that my time could be spent on other things than to continue listening to any more of their self-righteousness. I unsubscribed and wrote the following review on iTunes:

A podcast for the converted (2 stars)

At first I enjoyed the jovial banter and casual meanderings of this podcast, but then it happened; the novelty wore off. I began to tire of the condescending attitude, the "in-crowd" jokes and the constant put downs of their opponents! It seems that the Skeptic Zone crew have axes to grind and like to rub noses in the proverbial.

I have no time for pompous people who appear to laugh at anyone who isn't as clever as they consider themselves to be. They should be using this podcast to reach out and educate, but instead they choose to demean and ridicule.

I suggest that newbie skeptics should stick with Skeptoid or The Skeptics Guide to the Universe for less drivel and more grounded discussion with far less derision.

I admit that I could have worded this a lot better, and if I had been approached appropriately I would have considered a revision that was less critical of the individuals and more focused on the issues with the tone of the format. As you'll soon understand, I'm reticent to do that now.

My second mistake was to engage two of the podcasters on Twitter. The ensuing debacle is a textbook case of how NOT to react to criticism, especially towards customers in a public forum. See how many examples of poor debate, ineffective conflict resolution, bad customer service and negative PR you can spot. Admittedly Twitter, with its 140 character limitation, is horrendously tragic for effective debate, but this is no excuse for the tirade of vitriol foisted upon me.

Remember to keep this in a customer service context; I (polemicol) am the difficult customer with the complaint and they (skepticzone, DrRachie and podblack) are the service providers reacting to my criticism.

- - - - -

RICHARD SAUNDERS @SkepticZone:

7:01 PM Mar 18th @SkepticZone your podcast would be better if you used it to inform & educate instead of scoff and ridicule. I have unsubscribed.

• 7:05 PM Mar 18th SkepticZone @PolemiCol I have not had the chance to hear your weekly podcast yet.

7:32 PM Mar 18th @SkepticZone thanks. point proved.

- - - - -

RACHAEL DUNLOP @DrRachie:

7:07 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie congrats on your shorty award. Take a tip - tone down the ridicule & self-righteousness on SkepticZone. It's unbecoming.

• 7:11 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol thanks on the congrats. Can I ask what did you thought was self righteous specifically, to help for future? Cheers

7:37 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie too much ridicule of those caught up in non-science. It would shame them rather than educate

• 7:46 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol Sometimes it's difficult to find a balance between going in hard when harm is caused & educating. I'll take it on board, cheers

9:46 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie it's more the case that every eisode makes fun of these people. E.g.: You can't teach evolution by deriding creationism.

• 10:05 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie that should have been I.e. not e.g.
• 10:09 PM Mar 18th DrRachie @PolemiCol I didn't realize it comes across that way. Admittedly sometimes I deride, eg ear candles. I'll keep it in mind, thx

10:21 PM Mar 18th @DrRachie it's easy to preach from the high ground. Even skepticism risks cult status if ppl create the culture and follow blindly.

- - - - -

At this point it seems that Dr Rachie has dealt with me in a civilised and mature manner, seemingly taking on board my criticism as it was intended. At this point I thought everything was rather reasonable. And then it was if I was channelling Homer Simpson ...

"Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees?
Or the dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

Yes, along came the dog with bees in her mouth ...

- - - - -

KYLIE STURGESS @podblack:

2:05 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - email to let us all know if you condemn us _all_ - or just @DrRachie with your review. http://is.gd/aR77u & http://is.gd/aR78H.

• 2:23 PM Mar 21st @podblack I don't think "condemn" is the right word. I hope you can all work with criticism and aim to improve the show

2:54 PM Mar 21st {DM from podblack} You did not email, contact via Skype, outline EXACTLY what your issues were - you just wrote that review. 140 char tweets isn't discussion.

2:56 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - if you bothered to outline EXACTLY what issues, examples, constructive criticism - then we'd listen. You just 'unsubscribed'.
2:58 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - you clearly don't know the show if you're unaware that we work as educators (Richard, Rachie & myself) and always review.
2:59 PM Mar 21st podblack @PolemiCol - as it is, the most decent thing you could do is remove your review. I doubt you will, but I guess you don't aim to improve. :/

• 2:12 PM Mar 22nd @podblack its not the only bad review you have. Learn from it, or live with it. I'll remove the review when it is no longer true.
• 2:32 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol - You learned nothing then. You gave no feedback apart from complaints and expect us to change? We don't need you - bye.

3:10 PM Mar 21st podblack And to think... @PolemiCol has met me at Skeptics in the Park & member of my Perth Skeptics group. If at TAMOz, we'd buy you a drink. :/

• 2:10 PM Mar 22nd @podblack I raised this issue at Skeptics in the park - but you brushed it off. Instead of being defensive, try being a skeptic Dr R did
• 2:33 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol - when? And if you think not an issue, try reading my work. Complaining without evidence, chip on shoulder - not worth our time
• 2:35 PM Mar 22nd podblack @PolemiCol actually, she agrees. Listeners like you who do nothing but write reviews without talking first - @drrachie & I agree.
• 3:52 PM Mar 22nd @podblack "listeners like you" ?really? try applying a bit of critical thinking to the way you are handling my criticism

- - - - -

And then to top it all off, after I had posted a tweet asking for my followers to pass the good word around that I had a room to rent out, the bee-devil-dog then posted the following, before having second thoughts and deleting it from Twitter:

time not captured podblack @PolemiCol - don't expect help from anyone I know in Perth, that's for certain.

• 4:39 PM Mar 22nd @PolemiCol - don't expect help from anyone I know in Perth, that's for certain. (via @podblack) // credit to you for rethinking & deleting

- - - - -

So I put out a peace offering:

8:39 PM Mar 22nd @SkepticZone it seems we are embroiled in a bizarre conflict which could do with some resolution. Can we do it? Cc @podblack @DrRachie

• 8:57 PM Mar 22nd DrRachie @PolemiCol most certainly. Would you prefer to email me? Rachael at skeptic zone dot tv

Subsequently, I sent the following by email:

SkepticZone, iTunes and Twitter - 22 March 2010 22:43

Rachael,

Please forward this to Kylie, Richard or anyone else involved with SkepticZone at your discretion.

Let me firstly say that I stand by my comments. However, I seem to be guilty of a similar thing to what I've accused the podcasters of doing and for that I am sorry. I could have worded the review better and I hope to be able to rectify that.

I want to thank you for the mature approach you took in responding to my initial tweet. While I was disappointed with Richard's 'lets-see-you-do-better' retort I can overlook it as an off the cuff remark, however I am completely baffled by Kylie's explosive behaviour, which included removing me from the Perth Skeptics group.

Oddly, I've been left feeling that my mistake was in alerting yourself and Richard to my view. Anonymity would have had a distinct advantage, but I've always felt honesty and openness has a better place in life.

My concern is now twofold; the issue about tone in the podcasts remains and I would be happy to discuss that further if it has merit. The greater issue for me is the manner in which I was treated in a public forum. While that is something that I could simply brush off, or resolve solely with Kylie, there is the broader ramification that it has potential to do more damage to SkepticZone than my isolated review ever could.

Imagine having that exchange with a shop assistant or a customer service officer at a bank. Imagine a chef blasting a restaurant critic for a bad review or worse, kicking them out of the local dinner club? It is a ridiculous thought, but that is in effect what has happened.

I'm keen to discuss this and come to a point of reconciliation with all parties.

I received a response from Dr Rachael Dunlop, and though we disagree on one point, I feel satisfied that it has been resolved as best as we can. To that end, she deserves many accolades for her exemplary attitude and conduct.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for Kylie Sturgess (@podblack), who is IMHO one of the most emotionally voracious individuals I have ever encountered in the scientific community. If you come across her in real life, I advise you to avoid any possibility of confrontation, for your own peace of mind and perhaps your safety too.

Kylie removed me from the Perth Skeptics group, which she administrates on MeetUp.com. When I tried to make peace and requested to rejoin I was sent a terse email:

I run this group, I pay for this site and you are not welcome
here due to what I consider to be threatening behavior towards
my friends.

Go away.

Do not contact me again.

The main points to take from this are as follows:

1. everyone is in the marketing game - even non-profit organisations or podcasters
2. a customer has every right to leave any review they see fit
3. customers are not obligated to approach a service provider with complaints
4. service providers who only expect positive reviews are delusional
5. attacking customers doesn't win business
6. conflict resolution should be a priority for any service provider
7. beware: social media leaves an accurate record of events
   

Sceptics (or skeptics) are equally at risk of cult-like groupthink mentality - ironically instilling blind faith in their leadership, who are often given guru status. If those that worship the scientific method allow themselves to become the centre of a faith-based movement, it will inevitably detract from the reasonable openness of mind that science should be promoting. It thus becomes even more dangerous than the ignorance of psuedo-science.

What do you think?

My reflection through other eyes

Often we wonder how others see us. We question whether people like us or enjoy our company. Do they find us attractive, amusing, intelligent or ugly, ridiculous and stupid? Most of the time we never know the truth, and perhaps we are better off not knowing.

However, it seems that social media is opening up Pandora's box and giving us a small insight into how others might really view ourselves. On Facebook there are dozens of 'applications' (I know because I've blocked them all) that will seek the truth from your 'friends', compare their perceptions, ask them to reveal their opinions as well as judge you on a range of issues and personality traits. Who needs a therapist any more?

And if that wasn't enough, now you can even be stereotyped, pigeon-holed and categorised by complete strangers. Break out the champagne!

Thanks to Twitter's introduction of 'lists' you can now gain an insight into how your followers see you via your profile and tweeting history. Let me explain by analysing the lists that I've found myself thrust into.

Firstly, geographic locations account for the vast majority of Twitter lists, so it is natural that I find myself grouped in with fellow sandgropers (Western Australians) on no less than 18 lists with names like perthians, perthites, perth-peeps, perth-people, perthmafia, perth-twitterati, the-perth-files, perthizzles, perthies or simply "perth". In addition I'm included on 3 generic "Aussie" lists and a "outside-usa-overflow-box".

That means that more than half of the 38 lists that herald my twitterings are geocentric. No surprises there, in fact it's pretty boring unless there is more to the 'mafia' than simple metaphor.

The next most popular type of category seems to depend on whether you can be confirmed as a real person with "people-not-spammers", "rl-peeps" (presumably rl='real life'), "knowirl" (know in real life), "yet-to-meet-irl" and "twitter-contacts".

What really sparked my interest (and the reason for this prattle) was the group of lists that categorised my activity. Apparently I make the grade for "Social media" by two followers, despite being nothing more than a mere user. Other tweeps have fashioned my twitter existence with descriptions like "rationalists", "politics", and most surprisingly "journalists".

Meanwhile there were compliments like "awesomepeople" and "they-make-me-smile". Both of which compensated for being on the "other and "random" lists.

I'm just not sure what to make of being on the list titled "naughty-max" :-p

A new creed

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

V for Vendetta

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

And the war begins ...

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,

The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.

Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

Pride risks nationalism

Something I came up with today in a discussion about national pride and nationalism:

A preoccupation with the colours, emblems or subjective values of a nation instead of the beauty of the peoples and cultures that inhabit it, is pure nationalism and we should despise it before we learn to fear it.

There's a fine line between pride and nationalism and I choose to stand as far away from that line as possible. To that end, I don't like:

• vehicles adorned with flags (as if we don't know what it looks like)
• tattoos of flags or other nationalist symbols (as if you need proof of where you were born)
• objections to the burning of flags as a valid form of protest
• anything that promotes bigotry or vilification of any kind

What do you think?

Google v China

The last straw seems to have been placed on the back of Internet behemoth, Google. At least in China.

In a carefully worded announcement, Google announced it's intention to cease censoring search results for China after a detailed investigation into last year's cyber-attack which, among other issues, seems to have been aimed at Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. The company fell short of pointing the finger directly at the Chinese government, but the diplomatic language was unequivocal in assigning guilt.

Read the full announcement here.

The question remains, is this merely sabre rattling on Google's part, or do they fully intend to undo the many years of painstaking work and withdraw from the fastest growing market in the world? Time will tell what discussions, negotiations and concessions are made to the current arrangements and whether Google.cn is closed and the Google offices in China are vacated.

Almost 3 years ago to the day, Google admitted that the decision to assist with censorship was a mistake. <China censorship damaged us, Google founders admit, The Guardian, 27 Jan 2007)