Paul W on the social psychology of conformity
Guest post by Paul W.
Mooney claims that he’s done a lot of research and that his position is based on a lot of knowledge, and it’s all psychology, but IMO he seems almost entirely ignorant of the most relevant kind of psychology—social psychology of conformity going back to Solomon Asch’s very famous experiments in the 1950’s.
(Asch was Stanley Milgram’s advisor—Milgram being the guy who did the even more famous experiments on obedience to authority, where people thought they were shocking other people with dangerously high voltages because a scientist said to.)
Here are some topics worth looking up on Wikipedia—Mooney should demonstrate his familiarity with this stuff if he wants to be taken at all seriously, and his critics would do well to know about the six decades of relevant research he persistently ignores:
Conformity, Asch Conformity Experiments, Normative Social Influence, Social Proof, Information Cascade, and especially Minority Influence and Spiral of Silence.
Scientists and philosophers especially are in a position to exert minority influence, ending a spiral of silence by providing social proof, and undermining the information cascade that supports religion.
But that is exactly what Mooney is most opposed to—he is against the experts voicing the kind of expert opinion that has the greatest potential for minority influence, and he actively tries to undermine the appearance of expertise and minority solidarity that makes minority influence work best. He is firmly on the side of the normative conformity that keeps the masses ignorant of the kind of minority but expert view that could actually change a substantial number of minds.
He constantly misrepresents his politically convenient stances—e.g., that science can’t address supernaturalist claims that are “unfalsifiable”— as the majority view among experts, when in fact they are clearly not. (Even his favorite go-to philosopher of science, Barbara Forrest, says that the success of methodological naturalism is good evidence that supernaturalism is false. Science conflicts with almost all religion at a very basic level, and most philosophers and top scientists do know that.)
And he constantly misrepresents the science of communication, making it sound like all the evidence is on his side. That is very far from the truth.
If he’s really done his psychology homework, I have to suspect that he knows that. He knows that the bulk of social psychology is actually quite friendly to Overton-type strategies.
But of course he never even mentions Overton-type strategies, or any of the social science that undermines his simplistic framing of framing. He ignores six decades of absolutely mainstream social psychology that’s fairly directly relevant to his theses, and even scoffs at anybody who even suggests things are not as simple and obvious as he makes them out to be. He’s the expert, and he has lots of knowledge.
It just happens that his “lots of knowledge” conveniently doesn’t seem to include most of the utterly basic things you learn in the first half of a first course on social psychology.
Ah, very well said, Paul. Of course, I think we all knew, intuitively, that if you want to get a point of view considered by a wider public, you have to talk about it. Even Jesus knew that. You don’t put a light under a basket, but put it up somewhere where it helps to provide light. Same with ideas. If you have them, there’s no point in hiding them. The only way people will get to discuss them if you put them right up front where people will get to know about them. Mooney’s objections have always seemed just silly. It’s nice to have their silliness pointed out in some technical detail.
Quite; hence my wanting to make the technical detail more visible.
I know. Her classic and much-cited article on the subject says exactly that. I always want to do the Marshall McLuhan thing – why look, here she is now, to tell you you’re all wrong.
It is rather curious that he neglected to mention a recent study that supports the tactics of new atheism – despite covering it on his blog. I wasn’t sure at first if this was simply a timing difference – that his podcast interview happened after the study came out and so he was unaware of it when he was telling Lindsay that there was no evidence to support the tactics of new atheism. Having checked the dates of the Intersection piece of this study (April 21) and the interview by Lindsay (between the 8th to 11th of May) a timing overlap cannot be the reason. He has either forgotten the study or he has ‘forgotten’ the study.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/21/psych-evidence-that-supports-new-atheism/
Sigmund, are you sure that Mooney didn’t refer to that in the podcast? I thought I heard something I at least interpreted that way, fairly early on.
For those of us who aren’t familiar with social psychology, is there an overview somewhere of these terms and how they relate to the debate under discussion>
PaulW, I don’t remember a specific remark referring to that study. Does anyone else recall it?
His remarks later on in the interview certainly made it seem that no scientific study existed to support either the gnu or accomodationist cases and he was skeptical that a study could even be undertaken.
If Paul W. is inclined to write a post discussing the details of the views of the specific experts who contradict Mooney’s claim that science can’t address supernaturalist claims that are “unfalsifiable,” I think that might be very worthwhile.
(I mean in addition to Barbara Forrest. A greater number of such experts could help illustrate where the majority is.)
Good info here, Paul. Thanks. And thanks to Ophelia for spotlighting this.
@4 Yeah, I was waiting for him to mention that study, and he never did.
I can’t tell if Mooney is being deliberately dishonest or if he’s a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect – he knows so little, he thinks he’s an expert.
@Sigmund in #4: yeah, I was wondering about that too. I had a “did hell just freeze over”-moment when I first read that blog post. I’m not sure whether I’m surprised now that Mooney appears to have all but forgotten about it again.
Oh yes, I’d forgotten that he mentioned that study. Then Josh Rosenau said he was being too kind to it.
TheBlackCat,
The capitalized phrases in the fourth paragraph are all actual titles of Wikipedia articles. (“Conformity” through “Spiral of Silence”.) You can just go to wikipedia.org and cut and paste them in. (I’d have linkified them if I’d known Ophelia was going to make my comment a top-level post; I only didn’t in order to avoid having the comment thrown into moderation.)
I’m reading through some of the Wikipedia citations mentioned in the OP. The Minority Influence page is especially interesting:
That is exactly opposite of what Mooney and the Accomodationists are claiming. We need to be presenting arguments which conflict with their prior beliefs, that’s the way to get them to fully examine their beliefs.
It also adds that conviction and consistency helps to sway the majority. This is opposite what Mooney is saying. Instead of hyping up uncertainty, ambiguity and agnosticism, the majority would be more convinced if we stuck by atheism (not agnosticism) and the more hard-core the better.
The one piece which could support Mooney is the point that shifting majority opinion is much easier with the support of key leaders of the majority. It sounds like Mooney is always trying to promote some religious scientists to leadership positions. Frankly I don’t think it will work as I doubt many religious people view Ken Miller to be leaders and the genuine leaders (eg: the Pope) will never support us.
(Note: unlike Mooney, I think “we” are “atheists”, not “evolution supporters”. I personally don’t care nearly as much about promoting one scientific theory as I do about opposing all of the social effects religions have. “Does God exist” and “Why does God hate women” are more important questions to ask than “Did God create life?”)
There’s lots more in the links that I hadn’t learned in my undergrad Psych courses and well worth the few minutes it takes to scan them. I’m slowly working through some of the references since I think this is an important subject.
@Ophelia in #13: guess Mooney took that to heart then. Apparently he does listen to his critics. Sorta.
Good post Paul W. I especially agree with the part that Gnus need to become more familiar with these arguments since accommodationists are the ones claiming expertise.
Mooney, to my knowledge, has never acknowledged Overton Window effects, while Rosenau’s views seemed to have shifted from an acknowledgment that it is effective, but doesn’t apply to Gnus, to…
And of course his familiar refrain about Gnus who don’t “study the literature of social movement theory” or “apply that research to their own efforts.” According to him he’s laid the groundwork for
Is this the type of research Mooney claims is too expensive and impractical? If so, then what do we make of Rosenau’s advice…also impractical and poorly given? I’m always at a loss in trying to understand what Rosenau really wants Gnus to do. It’s my impression that he simply wants them to fade away into irrelevance.
Love this post. The subject of how minority views become majority has always interested me and it one of those things that I keep meaning to try and get more information on ‘some day’. I know it is nothing more than anecdote but one thing that became very apparent in online games is that an huge percentage of people fall into the ‘follower’ category. All it takes is for those few leader personalities to point in a direction and say “GO” and off they go. I think this is why outspoken atheists are so important. When a person adopts an outspoken leadership stance on something it CAN influence the herd so to speak.
Relying purely on rational discourse doesn’t work because we are not purely rational beings. Every time an atheist speaks out they become a little source of social input for others and given enough of these it can bring social pressures to bear on the majority. Anyone who has studied a little psychology is aware of how powerful even faux authority can be. Just by asserting yourself in a confident, consistent manner you can bring many people to your side. Sure, we all want people to be atheists for the right reasons but we can educate people on the how’s and why’s at the same time as asserting these psycho-social influences.
Mooney has written some good stuff on influence/beliefs which is why it is kind of befuddling why he has such tunnel-vision on this particular issue.
Does Rosenau or Mooney also suggest formally studying accommodationist tactics, or do they represent some kind of default approach?
I haven’t seen any specific pushing of “studying accomodationist tactics” from Mooney, but he seems to imply that if one reads enough science and philosophy one will magically take the same tack he does. I mean, that’s all he’s given as reason for his shift from rabid atheist to accomodationist. Maybe on top of the science and philosophy you need to see the “lots of knowledge” he claims informs his approach.
He spelled that out at one point – at the Intersection, early on in the Coyne/UA wars. He said he’d once been as Rong as the nooz are but then he read moar history and philosophy and stopped being Rong.
It was that simple-minded. Just read more h and p, and you will find out.
He seemed to be taking it entirely for granted that he’d read more h and p than anyone else.
And what he seemed oblivious to was that he was reading agenda-driven stuff. He was reading a lot of Templeton stuff. I know this because when I read the same stuff, why, there is Mooney’s line, all laid out.
I was being a bit cheeky there; presumably any study would include a variety of approaches. I was trying to snarkily note how Mooney and Rosenau are not even trying to conceal their sneering bias when they portray the hypothetical study as, “we simply must see if there’s any merit to this so-called gnu atheism” rather than, “let’s see which approach works better.”
This discussion reminds me of a youtuber I looked at a few years ago, AntiCitizenX. The title of the vid was “Psychology of Belief, Part 1: Informational Influence”, and several of the topics put forth in your post were addressed: citing the Asch experiments as well. Two of the more pertinent conclusions reached based on this data were how prone we are to conform to others erroneous perceptions, and “the presence of a single dissenting ally is enough to reduce conformity by 80%.” Cleary the data suggests we should continue to dissent! Dissent! Dissent! Oh, the video if anyone has interest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1A9vrsw6Hw
Thanks for this Paul W. and Ophelia.
I also think this recent blog by Mooney is evidence that counts against accommodationism. A Mercier and Sperber paper argues for the value of arguing:
And Hugo Mercier says in the comments:
Hmmm, “fixing institutions that don’t rely enough on genuine debate”? Sounds like religious institutions qualify to me. The point is that individuals can reason their way to ridiculous conclusions if not exposed to argument, and so can like-minded groups. Argument is a requirement to avoid echo chamber thinking.
Ah that’s a nice comment – fixing institutions that don’t rely enough on genuine debate – very good.
Ophelia wrote:
Perhaps they stapled a crisp new twenty to each page.
Ophelia, the psychological research you cite matches with my experience.
When I was about twelve I came across Bertrand Russell’s ‘Why I am not a Christian’ in the local library. It was a bit like finding pornography. I was from a conventional Catholic family, and ‘atheist’ meant something like ‘Satanist’. I could have been sent straight to Hell just for opening the book. But I did and I wasn’t. The prose was clear, honest, non-strident, and reasonable—just like the vast bulk of new atheist writing.
It was a new world-view to me: the idea that my community’s religious beliefs could be examined. I was persuaded by the argument that a just God, if He was there, wouldn’t—shouldn’t—object to sincere investigation. Russell opened me up to an evidence-based, logical way of examining the world.
Would a mealy-mouthed ‘accommodationist’ text have been as effective? I don’t know; I can’t run the experiment. But my experience is that open, honest, non-spin-doctored discourse works.
I meant to say… the research cited by Paul W
“But that is exactly what Mooney is most opposed to—he is against the experts voicing the kind of expert opinion that has the greatest potential for minority influence, and he actively tries to undermine the appearance of expertise and minority solidarity that makes minority influence work best. He is firmly on the side of the normative conformity that keeps the masses ignorant of the kind of minority but expert view that could actually change a substantial number of minds.”
This is why I did an MDiv at Harvard Divinity School. We need tons of atheists getting degrees in religion and publishing about religion so that we can change the cultural perception of atheism. So if you’re interested in fighting this fight, give me a shout at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard (www.harvardhumanist.org). Nothing makes believers more angry than a Harvard-educated atheist who knows religion better than any believer (and is more qualified to comment about it).
Word.
Mooney can haz sauce!
John F, are you in touch with Edmund Standing? Frequent contributor here (articles, I mean, not comments). Has an MA in theology. A Conservative in some ways, but certainly not the theological ones. You might hit it off.
Anybody seriously interested in social psychology, argument, and Overton windows should read this paper, “Why Do Humans Reasons: Arguments for an Argumentative Theory,” by Mercier and Sperber.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090
Kudos to Chris Mooney for blogging about it on his blog, despite its not being clearly supportive of his accommodationist position. (It’s very easy to interpret as supportive of gnuish/Overton strategies.)
Warning: that .pdf contains not only the 17 page target article from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, but almost 60 pages of responses by various experts. (That’s a standard thing for BBS, which I think is just awesome; they often have a whole issue devoted to a single paper they think is important, including lots of responses that more or less agree or disagree by heavy hitting psychologists, philosophers, etc.)
So far I’ve only read the paper itself, and the first couple of responses.
Here’s Chris’s two posts about it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/25/is-reasoning-built-for-winning-arguments-rather-than-finding-truth/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/26/is-this-the-right-room-for-an-argumentative-theory-of-reason/
The paper is basically arguing that conscious reasoning evolved largely for social purposes, and in particular, for arguing. The important novel idea is that there are two rather distinct mental abilities involved, namely the ability to generate arguments for your position, and the ability to evaluate arguments. Confirmation bias is mostly an artifact of the first function, but bystanders can nonetheless evaluate arguments suprisingly well if they hear them. Trying to determine what’s true is basically dialectical, and requires multiple viewpoints to be argued. Doing so sometimes results in polarization, but sometimes results in depolarization.
Mooney is predictably emphasizing the motivated reasoning and polarization aspect, which supports accommodationism, and IMO not paying enough attention to the dialectical culling of bogus arguments, which supports the gnu Overton strategy—it suggests that there are more reachable people out there than Mooney et al. would like you to think, and that a big problem is lack of attention to minority positions and especially to good arguments.
(BTW, I commented on The Intersection a few months ago, and my comment did go through. I guess I wasn’t permanently and generally banned. I don’t know what will happen if I say what I think about this paper.)
Oops, missed and edit-o—that should have just said that they’re refraining from “telling people that they’re hallucinating,” not “telling people that they’re hallucinating that they’re hallucinating.” Sorry for any confusion.
Oops, wrong thread. Sorry again.
One of the things I really don’t understand about the accommodationists like Mooney is just what exactly their goal is. They say they want the general public to “accept” evolution, but why? To what larger end? I want to see more critical thinkers. I want to see more people who employ reason instead of relying upon faith. Why does it matter to Mooney if John Q. Public says he “accepts” evolution if his conception of it is polluted to the core with magical thinking? That sort of “acceptance” won’t lead to a more scientifically literate society. It won’t lead to a more discriminate voting populace. It won’t help people become less gullible or credulous. It won’t reduce the influence of the woo-peddlers and religious authority figures who contaminate public discourse. It won’t lead to a more enlightened society. So what is Mooney really trying to accomplish?
Sam Harris nailed it when he wrote this critique of accommodationism: “The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying condition; the condition is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc.” (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/626387-sam-harris-on-accommodationism)
Exactly! What’s even the alternative? What does Mooney think his methods will accomplish? What’s he trying to change? I’m honestly at a loss. Does anyone know if Mooney ever responded to Harris? Or did he just ignore like he does most salient criticisms?
I think CM has been somewhat clear about the fact that he wants scientific literacy, and acceptance of evolution in particular, to increase. It seems to me his is basically the Eugenie Scott position—let’s get as many people to accept evolution as possible, and let’s watch our rhetoric so as not to put people off. Both Mooney and Scott, it seems to me, don’t care why people accept evolution. This really came through at that Humanist panel a while back. P.Z., who was on the panel with Scott and Mooney, basically called them on it. He said something to the effect of [I’m paraphrasing] People need to accept evolution for the proper reasons, not just because their pastor said it’s OK. That’s not exactly progress.
[…] Paul W on the social psychology of conformity – Butterflies and Wheels The title of the vid was “Psychology of Belief, Part 1: Informational Influence” and several of the topics put forth in your post were addressed: citing the Asch experiments as well. Two of the more pertinent […]