I once joked at a conference that when cats complain, they complain of herding skeptics.
The “skeptics” movement is not really a movement. It is instead a number of people who self-identify as a “skeptic” (with a ‘k’). This usually means they have a preference for an evidence-based approach to problem solving and see inherent merit in critical thinking.
Over the last ten or so years a number of “skeptics in the pub” groups have formed, with monthly speaker meeting or similar events. I used to go along to the very first such group – London Skeptics in the Pub – and I now convene “Westminster Skeptics“, which deals with matters to do with media, law, and policy.
There are two potential problems with such groups – and these problems can be labelled conveniently as “civility” and “inclusion”.
In respect of civility, the nature of skepticism means that people are often telling other people that they may well be wrong. As such, there is perhaps a greater need for civility than with other groups who do less contentious activities.
However, there is no challenge which can be made to either evidence or thinking which cannot be couched in polite terms.
As regards inclusion, there is an issue that the meetings do take place in pubs, and pubs are not always where people feel comfortable. Unfortunately, it is difficult to to find space for speaker meetings in town and city centres which can be afforded by a typical group. Meetings take place in pubs because there are few other places where meetings can be had. There is nothing stopping someone organising meetings elsewhere, if they can find a venue.
But pub rooms can be inaccessible to the disabled; evening meetings cannot be easily attended by those who have caring responsibilities; and some people find pub atmospheres intimidating.
At Westminster Skeptics we have tried to address these points by having our meetings podcasted and be being proactive in welcoming those who attend. (I also miss out the “in the pub” part of the name.) Also, and without resorting to tokenism, many of the patrons and speakers are female. The question-and-answer sessions are managed so as to avoid mouthy blokes hogging the mic. But it is nonetheless difficult to see what more can be done other than not to have the meetings at all.
However, the best does not need to be the enemy of the good, and so as the next step in trying to make Westminster Skeptics as civil and inclusive as possible, we are considering having the following short policy:
[Draft] Westminster Skeptics Civility and Inclusiveness Policy:
1. Skepticism is about challenging views and testing assertions. As such it is especially important that the highest levels of civility are always maintained, especially by those seeking to question or criticise what is said by others.
2. It is also important that everyone attending is as comfortable as possible in participating in the meeting. Everyone is entitled to be treated with respect.
3. In the event there is any concern or comment about the meeting, please contact either [male ] or [female].
Such a policy is not an end in itself; the business of a skeptics group is to promote skepticism and not social engineering. But meetings do go better for everyone when those present feel comfortable and engaged. And so such a policy may be a means to a worthwhile end.
Any thoughts welcome.
11 Responses to Skepticisim, civility, and inclusion.
Leave a Reply
I haven’t been able to attend for a while, but I remember the meetings fondly. I offer my feedback in the hope of being constructive. I think that what you are trying to say about civility could be said much more succinctly: “We ask that those attending meetings remain civil, polite, and respectful, even when robustly challenging the views of others.”
From my recollection, some “questions” seemed to take the form of someone hogging the mic for a minute or two and trying to give their own lecture before asking a rhetorical question. I’d add a second, simple rule that questions are limited to 30 seconds – or perhaps submitted to whoever is hosting the evening, so the most interesting can be asked. This would also allow shyer people to have their questions heard.
Lastly, why have a male and a female representative? To me, this suggests that either one wouldn’t be able to do the job. As a man myself, I would have no problem talking to a woman in that role as long as she could do the job. And if I were doing the job, I would expect people to be able to talk to me, regardless of how much alike we were. Also, would you want an LGBT representative? Muslim? Christian? In case some people felt uncomfortable talking to an atheist or straight person?
There’s really no need, as long as the person can do the job.
When my health allows, I look forward to coming back to the evenings.
Try using “try to” in the rules. i.e.
1. Skepticism is about challenging views and testing assertions. As such it is especially important that we try to maintain the highest levels of civility, especially by those seeking to question or criticise what is said by others.
2. It is also important that we try to make everyone attending as comfortable as possible in participating in the meeting. We should try to treat everyone with respect.
3. In the event there is any concern or comment about the meeting, please contact either [male ] or [female].
The disadvantage of the Rules as written is that if you want to be offended you can be. So if somebody comes along looking to be offended, you don’t want them claiming their rights, and insisting on somebody being punished.
Also bear in mind somebody is going to cock up and upset somebody else. “Try to” gives people a way out without losing face. If they say they didn’t mean to offend, then nobody will have to back down, then people get out of difficulties without anyone losing face – so no penalty to anyone.
“Sorry I accidentally offended you” ….” no I didn’t mean to” gets everyone off the hook.
Not having “in the pub” is a good idea. And encouraging and respecting non-drinkers. (eg give non-alcoholic drinks to the speakers) may help.
Civility? I think you need to embrace your inner mouthy bloke.
More seriously, I think some of the issues that you touch upon are symptomatic of activist groups in metropolitian areas, especially London. It seems that if the overly ideologically can achieve a critical mass, they can start to dominate and there is a feedback loop. Inclusion is a term they pay lip-service to but woe betide those that do not conform to their norms.
On the other hand, I’d suggest that Westminster Skeptics has put itself beyond the pale of skepticism with a focus on issues that are increasingly less relevant to skepticism. The media? The law? Policy? Too abstract. Full of moral relativism, engagement with an Establishment that is deaf to grass roots issues. And political.
I would argue that increasing focus of Westminster Skeptics with essentially political issues excludes many like myself. Westminster Skeptics is not inclusive.
Some good previous comments – here is my 2 cents.
“some people find pub atmospheres intimidating”… So you have the meeting in a pub but remove the “in the pub” monicker and hence what precisely?
If you can achieve this policy I think it will be laudable but hope that you are not creating a rod for your own back with the ensuing arguments about precisely what is “inclusive”, “civil” and “respect(ful)”
Good luck to you with definitions of respect. I just now looked it up in some dictionaries. George Galloway even has a party called “Respect”. I suggest you ditch that word entirely. Maybe replace with something like – Personal abuse will not be tolerated but do expect to have your views criticised without respect to any offense you may choose to take.
Point 3 I like without reservation and were I in your shoes I might start by merely stating it at the start of meetings and seeing what real world disputes arise before attempting a written policy.
Yours Respectfully
Deferentialist
I believe the Skeptics Guide to the Universe said it best “don’t be a dick”
I agree that people deserve respect and that abuse is not useful. Some ideas do not deserve respect and it is important for people to not feel constrained, by a fear of causing offense, from saying that an idea is poorly thought through nonsensical rubbish. A meeting of skeptiks should be a place for honest and respectful (to the person) discussion and criticism of ideas. Bad ideas deserve to be utterly and mercilessly crushed by good ideas, but emotional bullying is of course not acceptable. Your suggestions seem sensible to me.
My take on the rules. We don’t need no stinking rules.
More seriously, what’s wrong with a pub. You aren’t going to be holding the meeting in the bar itself, you’re holding it in a meeting room which just happens to be in a pub. Many meeting rooms have bars attached to cater for functions such as wedding receptions etc. So long as the choice of pub is not a one frequented by a particular group (football only, gay only, etc. which could make it awkward for some attendees) then it shouldn’t make any difference.
Disabled access. Don’t worry too much about it at the start. If you actually have disabled people enquiring about attending then you can make arrangements for them, either by finding somewhere else, helping them to the room, or webcasting – it all depends on their actual disability. Trying to cater for all disabilities ahead of time is not worth while.
Civility. So long as people aren’t shouting and swearing at each other then anything goes. Yes, people will be offended but that it the point of free speach. You have the right to be offended so that you can offend others in return. If people hog the microphone, then peer pressure should help reduce it’s problem. If attendees think someone is doing their own lecture or grandstanding then inform them, don’t just wait and then complain afterwards. A good chairman will ensure that speakers keep to the point.
Inclusion. It’s just a statement of good manners and being fair. Don’t think that men have to act any different when women are around. They generally aren’t that timid. Some men are timid, some women are forthright. Don’t make any special arrangements for the sexes. Allow questions in writing, but don’t depend on them. And anyone should not feel like they’ve been censored if they don’t get a chance to speak if time pressures stop them. Again a good chairman will watch the time and ensure that speakers don’t hog the limelight too long.
This policy sounds great; it seems to be very much in the spirit of Phil Plait’s great “Don’t be a dick” speech.
It’s interesting that you define Skeptics so broadly; looking at the movement from the outside, the common ground is far narrower than “preference for an evidence-based approach to problem solving and [seeing] inherent merit in critical thinking”. For some, it may include a focus on issues such as pseudoscience (which are probably covered by the other Skeptics groups in London). But I would also say that atheism/agnosticism and a strong emphasis on the “scientific method” as used in the natural sciences are common to most of the Skeptics I know, read, and hear about. Another hallmark is a rather robust debating style that resembles sword fights with words. Finally, I often see a rather unfortunate “if you’re not with us, you must be against us” tendency – if you’re a rational thinker, you should be a Skeptic, because you must come to the same conclusions as us. This reminds me of sectarian religious definitions of “True Believers”.
To me, a policy like the one you describe means that you’re going beyond the Skeptic core constituency to reach out to people who like critical thinking, but would not describe themselves as Skeptics. Personally, I think it’s great to see groups like Westminster Skeptics, and people like Phil Plait, in the Skeptical movement, but that’s just my two cents – and I’m not even a Skeptic!
I welcome the general concept of having a policy on civility and inclusiveness, particularly as I was once on the receiving end of a particularly unpleasant bit of conversation at one of the early meetings. I will mention no names but will say I was genuinely rather upset and surprised. I have not spoken to the chap concerned ever since, despite admiring his achievements.
There is one rather substantial problem with the policy as it stands: it has nothing to say about what might happen after the designated person is contacted. The mere notification of an issue does nothing to resolve it, after all.
So I suggest the policy be amended thus: “… please contact either [male ] or [female], who will make an appropriate response according to their best judgment”. This would include doing nothing at all, where warranted.
I suppose we could add an appeals procedure but that smacks of going horribly overboard.
1. A requirement to be civil not only excludes or restricts those who lack the facility for civil discourse but also denies yourself vital information about some of the individuals who attend your meetings that their chosen method of participation alone can give you. Why exclude the possible benefits to your group that uncivil people may bring? Are you deliberately choosing to be inclusive only of certain restricted types of people? It seems so. Are you sure that the benefits of civility outweigh the losses?
2. Demanding that everyone be treated with respect is just an underhanded way of mandating certain behaviour patterns at the expense of others. Why do you believe every person deserves respect as of right at your meetings? Why pre-judge them in that way rather than try to find out whether they deserve respect or not? It’s possible that in trying to establish this rule you demonstrate illiberal views, something you say you wish to avoid.
3. You are establishing a power structure over the meetings with this rule; are you sure you wish to do that? By doing so you open yourself to all sorts of accusations.
Overall I’d say your stated aim of comfort and civil engagement will inevitably restrict membership to a limited set of people and behaviour types. In systems terms you are dampening the variety of the system which leads to less resilience, lower output potential and so worse chances of success. Why are you thinking of doing that?
Having been a regular attender at these groups over the years, it’s difficult to measure just how influential they’ve been in growing my intellectual interests and capabilities . However, I do worry sometimes how easy it is to slide into a mood of group derision and slight intellectual snobbery over the unenlightened. That said, I absolutely accept there’s good comedy in in laughable beliefs – and mockery is an effective tool of free speech – but I can quickly be made to feel uncomfortable when feeling part of any ‘in group’. I wonder sometimes whether we’d be on morally higher ground if we resisted the temptation to laugh at laughable (but sincere) positions, but concede this would make for a much drier lecture room environment. I dunno…