Young Australian Skeptics

By Kylie Sturgess of the SkepticZone

Working on a podcast like The Skeptic Zone, which features Dr Karen Stollznow (Editor of the Skeptic magazine, CEO of the Australian Skeptics and Director of the Bay Area Skeptics), Dr Rachael Dunlop of the NSW Skeptics Committee, Amanda Rose, Tiffany Day and myself — and listening to the recent Young Australian Skeptics podcast, which features the insights of Dahli Breidis (author of the excellent post ‘Breast is Best’ featured on this site)  — well, you might be wondering why people wring their hands about the ‘participation level of women in skepticism’. They’re out there — unlike alien-​​created crop circles.

Skepticism being mostly about ‘just old men and their science hobby’ faces an ongoing challenge by such contributors to Australian podcasting — also by work of women both in Australia and overseas, in print and in pop-​​culture. Author Lynne Kelly, whose book ‘The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal’, has been printed in two different editions; Jennifer Michael Hecht’s ‘Doubt: A History’, and Mary Roach, author of ‘Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife’ are all excellent introductions to investigating the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the implications of doubt for scientific inquiry. I would include the likes of Chair-​​entity of the New Zealand skeptics, Vicki Hyde; children’s author Mary Hooper (‘Zara’); Annie Laurie Gaylor, author of ‘Women without Superstition’, on women freethinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth century; and the premiere woman in skeptical podcasting — co-​​presenter Robyn ‘Swoopy’ McCarthy of Skepticality, whose show has been active since 2005.

I ended up with a total of over thirty (and counting) female contributors throughout history, to skepticism and skeptical inquiry, showcased at a presentation hosted by the Australian Skeptics in Adelaide last year. Yet the stereotype does exist, more because people don’t seem to recognise skepticism as an organised group who hold such a variety of people within its ranks. The number of women in comparison to men who believe in ‘weird things’ prevail. Is it really something skeptics can deal with, despite our good intentions — and what could be a productive, accountable and well-​​organised approach really use?

I should point out the obvious overlap — something that Daniel Loxton raised in his essay ‘Where Do We Go From Here’ — what exactly divides support for skeptical inquiry — and just plain supporting women (or better yet, both genders) with scientific endeavor? If supporting women in science is the actual goal, then shouldn’t being an ally (or better yet, just plain devoting resources altogether) to major respectable, long-​​term, organised not-​​for-​​profit organisations which promote women and science, be a better and more profitable use of time and money? Is it just more garrulous attention-​​seeking when there is in fact a bigger problem facing skeptics of both genders — a lack of comparable organisation-​​skills and unity altogether?

It can be said that ‘a science education doesn’t necessarily guarantee one will be skeptical’ — studies into the overlap demonstrate that a higher education doesn’t necessarily mean one will hold less belief in the paranormal (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005; Farha & Steward Jr, 2006). So, if encouraging a skeptical mindset is not necessarily solved by formal education as it stands so far — what’s missing? Would improved education overall be the goal for skeptics challenging the status-​​quo of belief in ‘weird things’… and which weird things should be challenged first and foremost?

Are skeptics really the sort of people who will do it well? Do they really work well anyway, raises its head again — if there is no real centralised goal or body that works like funded science outreach groups or educational institutions? Is the nature of the beast of skepticism… just ‘not that kind of creature’?

It could be said that the very self-​​identification of oneself as a ‘skeptic’ is not particularly useful and in fact counter-​​productive. ‘Climate Change Skeptic’, the ‘token skeptic’, and the way the term is a popular synonym for cynic, nay-​​sayer and opponent of the mainstream. Whilst we admire the work of Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, his skepticism isn’t the first thing that is broadcast and nor does it seem particularly necessary for him to do so for him to be successful as he is. Jon Ronson’s interview for the Skeptic Zone podcast revealed that he never particularly self-​​identified as a skeptic and arguably his career and that of many people like Dr Richard Wiseman, Dr Eugenie Scott, Dr Pamela Gay and even Richard Dawkins, could manage fine by just doing as they do — Psychologist, Educator, Astronomer, Scientist — without the associated ‘baggage’ of a label like ‘skeptic’. It isn’t how I identify myself, for a start, since I prefer to focus on other aspects of my work instead.

Criticism of the social-​​skills of skeptic groups was raised when a post of mine was recognised on the popular feminist blog Feministing, with a short summary of the general content and a reflection upon how ‘Joyful Dinosaur’ felt turned off by organised skepticism, or more accurately, rationalist groups in general. She picked up on that message about how there were flaws and that even now, the pro-​​science and STEM careers lobby are better filling the gap when it comes to supporting women:

The author outlines a brief history of Women’s contributions to skepticism. Among some other ideas, she broached the idea that skeptics have the potential to be mostly men, ‘macho’ and condescending, and that women are turned off by that, and would rather spend their time with their supportive friends who believe in the paranormal than hang around a bunch of rude men they agree with.
I’ve had this problem, and not all skeptic communities are very good. I’ve had some bad experiences with the Rational Response Squad, which might be said to be more of a militant atheist group than a skeptic society. But their tactics involve ridiculing debate opponents, and I don’t agree with that at all. Ad hominem attacks are rarely a good idea. The debate we were having was over feminism and chivalry. I suggested that treating someone in an overly kind and chivalrous way just because you desire to have sex with them, and then getting angry at them when they’re not interested is sexist and patriarchal. It was infuriating to hear a group of otherwise intelligent human beings spew the most sexist s***.
It turned out they weren’t that skeptical after all. But this is a problem, one I think the author [of Podblack blog] handles quite well:
’The Bay Area Skeptics are not the only ones to confront the problem. In response to an article by physicist George Lawrence in Rocky Mountain Skeptic, John Wilder (1988) wrote: “For all of the author’s [Lawrence’s] scientific, academic and intellectual credentials, he displays a level of disrespect for others that, in my opinion, is completely inappropriate… The author succeeded only in subjecting a group of sincere… people to outright ridicule”.

Another issue that is raised as an ‘excuse’ for targeting women as skeptics is that they are more likely to be the buyers of dubious products. Yet I have yet to see any conclusive evidence at all that women in particular are more of a ‘goal’ for scams and frauds. How do you judge such a sample — by gender differences regarding sales of medical products? Are there more or less sales of penis enhancement devices, vitamins and hair loss products for men in comparison to vitamins, facial products that claim to lift years off your age and boost your bust size for women? How many men as compared to women fall for Nigerian Spam Scams? Or are currently heading to clinics for youth-​​enhancing treatments, let alone cancer cures?

Also — what makes it ‘pseudoscience’ and not just ‘fraud or scam’? See, if you assume they are one and the same thing, you’re shifting the goalposts quite dramatically. Whilst there is certainly an overlap between consumer rights and analysis of paranormal and pseudoscientific belief, they really aren’t the same. Pseudoscience, according to Preece and Baxter (2000), involves a set of ideas or theories which are claimed to be scientific but which are contrary to standard science and which have failed empirical tests or which cannot in principle be tested. People can get hurt — ranging from basic economic loss or even by possible loss of life — by pseudoscientifically-​​based products, sure. But how much ‘pseudoscience’ is in the fraudulent product?

There’s a ‘can’ there. You can get ripped off by buying something that just doesn’t do what it’s claimed to do, simply because it doesn’t do anything it promises or is bad for you — not because it’s using pseudoscience or paranormal claims in its marketing.

On that last point, I refer to a 2006 study by Global TGI, (Target Group Index, an international market research company) on ‘The Importance of Looking Young’:

So what kind of consumer is most likely to attach importance to looking young? Surprisingly, the gender difference is not as great as might be assumed; in some cases women are considerably more likely to agree than men, for example in the USA, where 43% of women agree, in comparison to only 29% of men. In most countries however, the margin is small, (such as in South Africa where 58% of men agree, compared to only 60% of women) and in Mexico men are actually slightly more likely to agree.

Yet it doesn’t mean that women can’t be skeptical about the benefits of such products too — it apparently relates to cultural trends:

Looking at female consumers, it is clear that this preoccupation with youth is having an impact on purchase decisions. In some parts of the world, women seem unconvinced by the youth giving promises of beauty products. In China for example, only 8% use age-​​defying cream (and other kinds of creams, such as those with skin whitening properties, are much more of a priority). In Western Europe however, it is a different story. In Spain, a quarter of women use anti-​​ageing or anti-​​wrinkle creams, rising to a third of German women. In France 16% of women use such a product every day and nearly half of British women say they ‘use products to keep their skin young and supple’.

In a similar vein, ‘The Gotham Skeptic’, the official newsletter of New York City Skeptics recently featured an article, ‘Why Are You A Skeptic?’ by Lisa Bauer. In it, she discussed her investigation of the origins of skeptical leanings in an informal survey. Despite the flaws of her study, such as a limited sample size, dubious nature of internet-​​self-​​selected participants and incorporation of only a few US-​​based forum boards, some qualitative comments included:

“It was not necessarily a conversion for me; being a skeptic was more a way of how I already thought for the most part and putting a name to it.” Another respondent writes, “Is it fair to say “it’s simply my nature”? I’ve always been a puzzle solver. […] Combine that with the knowledge that things aren’t always as they seem, and you’ve got a born skeptic”… Many described a sort of predisposition to being a skeptic that was followed with exposure to scientific or skeptical methods; 20% mentioned an interest in science preceded or coincided with the emergence of their skeptical thought. Another 18% mentioned atheism preceded or coincided with their skepticism… Eight percent mentioned both. For example, one respondent writes, “I lost my faith in God during the summer between 7^th and 8^th grade – I guess it was around that time that I stopped taking a lot of things on faith.”

Over time, I have learned how research does suggest that women are more superstitious than men (Gallup & Newport, 1991) and that females hold a greater range of paranormal beliefs than males (Wolfradt, 1997; Rice, 2003; IPSOS Mori, 2007), although men express greater belief in UFOs and extraterrestrials (Rice, 2003). According to Blackmore (1997) a possible reason for this is that males are encouraged to engage in science, while females are more encouraged towards social and religious issues which emphasise fantasy life.

Yet a brief discussion with University of Tasmania lecturer Dr Krissy Wilson on ‘what makes a skeptic’ raised the notion of whether some people are just ‘born with a tendency that way’. This was covered in her co-​​authored essay with Dr Chris French, found in ‘Tall Tales About the Mind And Brain’ (Wilson & French, 2007) — such as a correlation between paranormal belief and deficit in syllogistic reasoning (Evans & StB, 1989; Evans, StB, Newstead & Byrne, 1993; Merla-​​Ramos, 2000); a distorted concept of randomness, e.g Type I or ‘false alarms’ to be more likely held by believers (Brugger, Landis & Regard, 1990; Brugger, 2001; Brugger & Taylor, 2003).

There’s also a mention of perceptual biases tendency (Brugger, Regard, Landis, Cook, Krebs & Nederberger, 1993; Pizzagalli, Lehman, Gianotti, Koenig, Tanaka, Wackermann & Brugger, 2000); a susceptiblity to experiencing anomalous sensations /​ some cases believers are just more suggestible (Wiseman, Watt, Greening, Stevens & O’Keeffe, 2002; 2003), amongst other contributing factors (more of which I summarise on my blogpost ‘Women and Superstition — Part Two’).

Studies have demonstrated that there has been a documented increase in belief in various items like Extra-​​Terrestrials, ghosts, hauntings, communication with the dead and astrology (National Science Foundation, 2002). A similar situation exists with regard to the adoption of secular world views with associated New Age beliefs (Hergovich & Arendasy, 2005). This has also been noted in the shift in younger generation Australians towards New Age practices and associated paranormal beliefs (Mason, Webber, Singleton, & Hughes, 2006).

Age related differences in beliefs are also evident with adults under the age of 30 reported as being more superstitious than older age groups (Gallup & Newport, 1991) and that increasing age may lead to greater belief in the supernatural (Shermer, 1997; Aarnio & Lindeman, 2006). Paranormal beliefs can be influenced by cultural factors such as family, peer groups, media influences, and the persuasive power of social institutions (e.g., religious or cultural groups) and education (Schriever, 2000; Clark, 2002; Diaz-​​Vilela & Alvarez-​​Gonzalez, 2004). This springs to mind again when we look at consumer behaviour towards products that just plain don’t work — the cultural influence.

The question about ‘socialisation’ and its contribution is raised by the article on Feministing — can that be a key to encouraging a more skeptical mindset? Socialisation has been used to explain gender differences concerning the extent of paranormal beliefs — but more studies over time and changes in technology (for a start!) are needed. I’ve already mentioned the power of peer influence and friendships in a recent study on what leads girls to continue on in the sciences whilst at school. Clark (2005) for example, noted the prevalence of popular culture and new age beliefs in teenage females, whilst Mason, Webber, Singleton and Hughes (2006) recorded a shift towards secular views of the world which incorporated many new age beliefs and practices.

The findings demonstrated that entertainment media (such as popular culture portrayals of the supernatural) and religion are part of a bigger framework which influences young people’s beliefs; those who are not fully entrenched in religious, political or skeptical scientific inquiry may find themselves more likely to find ‘the possible’ or appeal of supernatural or paranormal realms, particularly as a challenge to the government or religion they feel alienated from (Clark, 2002).

In conclusion, I’d say certainly supporting women in science-​​related fields is useful to skepticism (let alone society as a whole) — yet we have to be mindful that there are many factors that might marginalise someone regardless of their gender — and the educational benefits of science should reach as many people as possible. There are already pro-​​science groups and initiatives out there that need support (female-​​orientated or otherwise) — so why reinvent what is becoming a squeaky wheel if indeed ‘women in skepticism’ is about women alone?

Or should we put aside this gender division as being largely irrelevant in terms of just improving overall interaction and socialisation skills, let alone organisation and goal-​​setting? Let us work smarter — rather than harder at being a figurehead on a shaky pedestal.

Select Bibliography:
Coly, L. & White, R. (1991). Women and Parapsychology — Proceedings of an International Conference. Parapsychology Foundation, New York.
Myers, D. G. ‘The powers and perils of intuition’. [Book; Edited Book] Della Sala, S. (Ed). (2007). Tall tales about the mind & brain: Separating fact from fiction. New York, NY, US: Oxford University.
Wilson, K. & French, C. ‘Cognitive factors underlying paranormal beliefs and experiences.’ [Book; Edited Book] Della Sala, S. (Ed). (2007). Tall tales about the mind & brain: Separating fact from fiction. New York, NY, US: Oxford University.
Wiseman, R. & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1533 – 1541.
Zusne, L. & Jones, W.H. (1982). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience. (2^nd ed.) Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tags: advertising, belief, gender, marketing, men, organisation, psychology, Research, Science, skeptical organisations, women, women and skepticism

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am and is filed under Dahli Breidis, Education, Kylie Sturgess, Paranormal, Pseudoscience, Science, Skeptic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.