|
0
|
Does the skeptical movement need to encourage more women and ethnic-minorities? Apart form a few (very) notable exceptions: The community is largely composed of white middle-class/professional men. While in comparison the other side seems to have plenty of women. Is this due to woo-advertising targeting women? Poor science education for girls at school? |
|||||||||||
|
|
8
|
Firstly - if that's the only three examples you can give, then you're probably not looking hard enough! :) On a serious note, however - I've posted on my blog on the issue for the past two or so years. Simply head to Sex and Superstitions at Podblack.com. There's also two podcasts that have addressed it - more recently the Token Skeptic podcast and over time, the Skeptic Zone podcast. My Masters degree looks at the measurement of paranormal belief and the relative contribution of women to strong beliefs in the sample. I should point out that my Podblack site has much more about:
There's plenty more that can be said, plenty more that can be asked. I'd suggest you also listen to the podcast/radio episode on Gender in Skepticism by the Skeptically Speaking radio show. Taken from the Token Skeptic podcast (#4): What do we know about whether women have a tendency to be more skeptically-minded or not? Psychological research demonstrates that cognitive differences do not equal cognitive deficiencies – in the case of paranormal and supernatural beliefs, there is certainly evidence that women are more likely to affirm their beliefs, but it does not mean that they are definitely more credulous or lacking in intellect. From statistical analysis of surveys to a recent article published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience on the presence of dopamine and its influence on the brain, we naturally learn more and more over time about belief in the ‘weird things’. The paranormal is a term that generally refers to alleged phenomena or events asserted to be outside the range of ordinarily accepted forces (Lett, 1990) and belief in the paranormal is no longer considered an eccentricity in the modern world. We can find ‘psychic readings’ in popular women’s magazines and thousands of people attend the ‘speaking with the dead’ extravaganzas of John Edward and Sylvia Browne. Paranormal beliefs are often associated with practices of the occult, magic (as opposed to dramatic performances, sleight-of-hand and dextrous manipulation of items to create illusions), and superstitions. Studies of paranormal beliefs are often done in conjunction with pseudoscientific beliefs, which, 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 have failed empirical tests (or which cannot in principle be tested), such as the claims of ‘new age’ practices like crystal healing or reiki. The study of sex differences in science refers to biological differences such as chromosomes and internal and external sex organs; ‘gender’ describes characteristics that an individual’s society defines as masculine or feminine (Unger & Crawford, 1992). Research into believers of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims often compare how males and females respond to surveys on the existence of UFOs, ghosts, whether astrology accurately reflects our lives and so forth (Gallup & Newport, 1991; Wolfradt, 1997; Shermer, 2001). In 2007, a representative quota sample of 1,005 adults in Great Britain aged from 16 years and upward were interviewed via telephone, demonstrating that within the sample belief in telepathy was very strong amongst women (47%) with one in four consulting their horoscope regularly and one in four of those believing ‘that horoscopes accurately predicted events in their lives’ (Ipsos-MORI, 2007). 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 (Clark, 2002; Díaz-Vilela & Álvarez-González, 2004; Schriever, 2000). Socialisation has been used to explain gender differences concerning the extent of paranormal beliefs. Clark (2005) for example, noted the prevalence of popular culture and new age beliefs in teenage females, while Mason, Webber, Singleton and Hughes (2006) recorded a shift towards secular views of the world, some of which incorporate new age beliefs and practices. Studies using intelligence tests in conjunction with belief in the paranormal have yielded mixed findings, with some failing to find a relationship (e.g., Wiseman & Watt, 2004) and others demonstrating higher IQ scores in believers than disbelievers (Jones, Russell, & Nickel, 1977). Otis and Alcock (1982) found that an individual’s level of skepticism is negatively related to superstitious beliefs and individuals in certain academic fields may possess a greater level of skepticism than others. Individuals from the natural sciences have been found to be more skeptical than individuals from the humanities, arts, and education, while individuals working in the arts and humanities tend to be relatively more superstitious than individuals in other academic fields (Happs, 1987; Otis & Alcock, 1982; Shermer, 1997). If we take into consideration how traditionally men dominate the fields of science and mathematics, women may be at a disadvantage when it comes to developing a ‘skeptical mindset’. While formal education increases the likelihood of skepticism and a reduction in superstition (Vyse, 1997), Aarnio and Lindeman’s (2006) study of 239 Finnish volunteers demonstrated a disassociation between intuitive thinking (rather than analytical thinking) and skepticism. Paranormal-believing participants demonstrated less emotional stability and assigned more purpose to artificial and random events, thereby pointing to a problem with confusion of core knowledge (knowledge learned without instruction, in terms of intuitive comprehension of physical, biological and psychological entities as well as their processes). Hood (2009) argues that females (as biologically defined) are more inclined as a group towards intuitive reasoning, involving genetic predisposition. His theory of the ‘supersense’, or the human brain’s pre-wiring towards supporting intuitions and superstitions, is suggested as a key to understanding how we can rationalise beliefs. There is also a commonly-held stereotype that women demonstrate better performances on social cognition tests, such as face processing and theory of mind in comparison to men, leading to women demonstrating social skills and understanding other’s perspectives more easily. A very recent study using a drug called L-dopa (sometimes applied in treatment of Parkinson’s disease by raising levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain) led experimenters to infer that its presence decreased sensitivity to perceptual-cognitive decisions and promoted conservative in the sample of skeptically-minded participants (Krummenacher, Mohr, Haker & Brugger, 2009). These results led to the conclusion that paranormal ideation might profoundly modulate pain assessment, assessment of risky scenarios, recognition of patterns and decision making. An earlier study by Mohr, Graves, Gianotti, Pizzagalli, and Brugger (2001) also contributed to investigating what commonalities there are between creative thinking, paranormal belief and delusional ideation – leading to further questions as to whether dopamine is the “gullibility neurotransmitter” for non-skeptical people (particularly when the first study only used males and the second used a small number of subjects). As research continues into the origins and influences upon paranormal and pseudoscientific belief, the contributions of cognitive neuroscience and technology brings us closer to understanding better the need to believe in ‘weird things’. Creative thinking, intuition and highly-developed interpersonal skills cannot be discounted as useless, yet the potential for paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs to lead members of either sex towards dangerous practices shouldn’t be ignored either. |
||
|
|
|
2
|
Firstly thanks for mentioning me. That's pretty much made my day :D This is something I've contemplated for quite some time and we spoke to Rebecca Watson on RI about it and she mentioned how she didn't think that it was a case of more women being woo-woo than men as such, it's just the way people tend to percieve those who make certain claims. It doesn't help when you have people like Jenny McCarthy, Merly Dorey and frickin' Oprah Winfrey promoting what they do. Grr. Especially Oprah. Who is female. From my own experience as a ghost researcher in the past I've encountered my fair share of male woo people and female people. I think perhaps the problem might be a reluctance for females to come forward with their skeptical views to a wider audience simply because of the fact that the perception of skepticism is that it's dominated by men with bushy beards (no offence means to anyone with a beard of course, but you know what I mean.) I know myself that when I was asked to start the Righteous Indignation podcast I felt terrified that I might humuliate myself in what I initially percieved to be a male dominated world, but actually as time with the podcast has progressed I've discovered that there are female skeptics out there who come out of the woodwork in their dozens when you start to look for them. I definietely agree we need to encourage girls to become more actively involved in skepticism, and I think it is happening over time as I'm seeing more and more women writing about and discussing rational thinking. |
|||
|
|
2
|
I have not heard of the first two people listed until I read this question. However, there are many women involved in skepticism, such as Podblack, Desiree Schell, Maria Walters, several active bloggers (some affiliated with Skepchick), Heidi Anderson, Dr.Rachie in Australia, and Jennifer Ouellette, just to name a very few. My observations, from spending nearly 30 years in the engineering and science fields, is that the percentage of women I see at skeptical events or the skeptics group I started, is higher than the percentage of women I see in the technical conferences I attend several times per year. No, not in line with the population, but the skeptical groups tend to be more women-friendly than much of industry. I don't feel the science education is any "poorer" for women than it is for the men, but my observation is that there is lower enrollment for coursework, starting even in middle school. I was quite frequently the only female in my physics, chemistry, or engineering classes. My own outreach, starting two decades ago, was to encourage and mentor more young women to go into these fields. Even this week I had a discussion with a young woman studying mechanical engineering who is having problems getting a summer job in her field, but she expressly told me that she didn't want to get a 'field job'. I pointed out to her than her male classmates were taking these type of jobs and gaining valuable experience and contacts, but I could not seem to convince her that taking a dirty job would be of any value, regardless than it paid twice what she can make working at Wal-Mart for the summer. She is one of three women in her program. As Podblack and Evan indicate, these are historical and culture issues, NOT a matter of biology or psychology. |
||
|
|
|
1
|
Occam's razor applies here, and there is a real danger of "over-explaining" the movement's relative whiteness and maleness. Perhaps people are "recruited" into the skeptical movement by social peers who are also skeptics. People tend to be social peers with other people like them – dudes with dudes, white folks with white folks, and so on. Thus, if the skeptical movement started out disproportionately white and male, then it would be expected to stay white and male, even if the original conditions that made it start out white and male are long gone. It could well be that today, females and people of color are equally receptive to skeptical ideology, and equally capable of contributing to the skeptical movement – but the movement continues to be disproportionately white and male because of racism and sexism that existed decades ago. We need to distinguish between the general concept of skepticism, and The Skeptical Movement in particular. One can be the hardest of hard-core skeptics without actually being part of the movement; one can be an active participant in the movement without having especially well-developed critical thinking skills. (We've all met those people.) So, explaining the gender gap in skepticism in terms of biological differences may be a non-starter. If it is really true that dudes tend to be hard-nosed, critical, and competitive, while chicks tend towards harmony, consensus, and mutual respect... why would that necessarily lead the movement to be populated by males? A functional movement requires harmony, mutual respect, and some degree of consensus, doesn't it? There are many things about the skeptical movement -- as an actually-existing social phenomenon -- that are not specifically skeptical. I do not see what is skeptical about quoting "Monty Python" films, for example, but it sure does seem popular with our crowd. It's possible that white male skeptics have "carried over" into skepticism certain cultural totems, like Python quotes, which tend to make the movement more attractive for other white males, and less welcoming to women and people of color. It's possible that white male skeptics have neglected important areas of skeptical activism that would be much more interesting to women and people of color. If my hypotheses here are correct, this is good news. It would mean that the skeptical movement can diversify without all that much trouble; we are not up against immutable laws of biology or psychology, just dealing with one more pesky historical legacy. |
||
|
|
|
0
|
I'm not sure what the data on this but my educated guess is the 'geek factor.' Skepticism, at least the nitty gritty side of it that really gets involved in understanding the data and promoting the cause, appeals to the sort of people whose heads are turned when they hear the word 'statistics' or, indeed, 'data.' Of course, there's no reason at all that women can't be as interested in such things as men but they are considered 'geeky' interests. Currently, for whatever reason, there seems to be a much higher social stigma to being a female 'geek' than a male one. It might be that such interests are seen as 'un-ladylike,' though it's probably more complicated than that. This is a shame, as this stigma might be a big influence during teenage development, when fitting-in is often seen as everything. It's easy to imagine that both males and females might hide or actively try to ignore their 'geek streak' in order to better fit in, and that this could carry on into adulthood unless their interest is somehow reawakened. Since the stigma appears greater for females, though, this might explain why fewer of them end up as part of the Skeptical movement. I'd be interested to hear if any research has been done in this area. |
|||
|
|
0
|
Because all the ladies already in the movement are so smart and generally appealing that us guys are drawn like moths to a flame, while potential skeptic ladies are afraid they may appear diminished by comparison - a fear which is unfounded, since simply becoming an openly skeptical woman is scientifically proven* to increase attractiveness 10-fold. I have not evaluated any same-sex implications of this research, but invite others to do so. *This and Other Invented References, Smith et al (2009) |
||
|
|
|
-4
|
Stolen from QI the other day, but males brains are much more logically atuned, where as females are more emotionaly atuned. which i would think affects the male/female proportion two fold.
women are biologically less inclined to be logically-skepical. |
|||||||||||
|
