Susan Blackmore has an unexpected lecture experience at Oxford Royale Academy

[AtheistCrusader]

I think her observations are relevant to some issues that have been going on in this forum of late.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/

"Then I arrived at religion. I pointed out that religions demand lots of resources (I showed them pictures of a church, a Hindu temple, a Jewish menorah and Muslim pilgrims on Hajj); they pose threats to health (I showed people ‘purifying their souls’ by wading in the stinking germ-laden Ganges) and make people do strange things (I showed rows of Muslims bent over with their heads on the floor). I hadn’t gone far with this before five or six young men got up and began to walk out. They had a good distance to go across the large hall, so I said ‘Excuse me, would you mind telling me why you are leaving?’ There was a long silence until one said, ‘You are offending us. We will not listen,’ and they left. Soon after that another bunch left, and then another.

I explained the idea of religions as memeplexes: they package up a set of doctrines, tell believers to learn them, to pass them on, to have faith and not doubt, and they ensure obedience with fearsome threats and ridiculous promises. This I illustrated with images of Christian heaven and hell. Then I read from the Koran “those that have faith and do good works, Allah will admit them to gardens watered by running streams … pearls and bracelets of gold.” “Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.” More walked out. By the time I arrived at a slide calling religions (Richard’s fault!) ‘Viruses of the mind’, the lecture hall was looking rather empty.

The cartoon was worse. As I have often done before, I suggested that one final trick of a desperate religion (I didn’t say quite that this time) is to forbid laughter. I warned any devout Muslims in the audience to look away as I showed one of the Danish cartoons. It’s so simple – just a bunch of terrorists arriving in heaven to be told, “Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins’. That normally gets a good laugh – along with sympathy for the cartoonists threatened with death for something so innocuous. Not this time. More walked out.

I called out to some as they left, ‘Can’t you even listen to ideas you disagree with? In Oxford, of all places, you should be open-minded enough to hear alternative views’. But no. They said I needed an open mind. This really got to me, raising painful memories of my early research on psychics and clairvoyants who said, ‘You just don’t have an open mind,’ when my careful experiments showed no psychic powers. By the time I moved on to showing Internet memes and viral videos more than half the audience was gone."

[LiberalAndProud]

1. I'd really be interested in a study that measures physiological response to faith challenges.

It may be my imagination, but the rage response seems to me to be hard wired. It would be really interesting to compare the challenge response in unbelievers and believers of all stripes. The idea intrigues me.

[gcomeau]

2. Indeed

I read a rather hilarious thread this morning from some comedian who said that it was actually the atheists here who couldn't take criticism while admonishing us for being so rude and inconsiderate as to criticize others positions.

Apparently, I can only guess, the conclusion that we cannot take criticism stemming from the fact that when it is directed our way we actually engage and argue back. Thus somehow indicating we've been offended or something and can't "take it". As opposed to the other side of the debate, where time after time an argument is met with something along the line of "I'm not talking to you anymore, have a nice day!" The online equivalent of fleeing the lecture hall.

[mr blur]

3. "The online equivalent of fleeing the lecture hall."

[AlbertCat]

84. fleeing the lecture hall.

She scared the bejeezus out of them!

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. I'll bet she could have gotten a different response

if she had done the same presentation but included a mixture of positive and negative examples of religion. Maybe some would have still walked out, but others would have appreciated her attempt to be fair. Being equally negative to every religion is a kind of fairness, but it can also easily be seen as a one-sided view of religion in general, and it probably hurt her credibility. Her presentation was meant to be on memes, not on how awful religion is.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. It seemed to me to be basically the same lecture she gave at TED, with just

a little more material on the 'religion as a socially transmitted virus' dimension.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. I haven't seen her TED lecture.

Do you not think it was unprofessional of her to distract from her main points about memes by insisting on also teaching the awfulness of religion? I'm not surprised that the chairman who invited her was upset. He must have thought that even a "vociferous atheist" would have the discipline as a college professor to avoid presenting her opinion on religion in a one-sided way, especially when the topic wasn't even specifically religion.

And the fact that she decided to just blame the students rather than reflect on how her own style and methods may have contributed to the student response doesn't seem very productive either.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. At the TED confernence she touched on 'bad ideas'.

The ganges river one was similar to the 'touching the toilet paper to fold up the corners' bit, as being unhygienic. Seems a basic truth to me, anyway.

Here's the original lecture.

[Htom Sirveaux]

50. Ok, now that I've watched the video.

I didn't see any sign of a need to dwell only on the negatives of religion. She gave a whole presentation on memetics without mentioning religion at all! She mentions earrings or wearing glasses a certain way. Those things are not negative.

Regarding religion in her presentation to the students, she could have discussed the meme of feeding the poor, or healing the sick, or the idea that individual human beings have inherent dignity because each of us is made in the image of the very creator of all things. Religion doesn't need an exclusive license on those things to spread them. The "image of God" thing doesn't have to be true to spread according to her description of a meme. As I said originally, it would have made her much more credible.

Instead, she's patting herself on the back in the article that she didn't explicitly pitch the students on deconversion right then and there.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. According to her version of events, the disruption began as soon as she touched on evolution.

Just as she talked about I in the TED talk.

[Htom Sirveaux]

55. True, but it was one person, and nobody left, not even when one of the volunteers started the chant

of "there's a big old man in the sky". The walk-out began when she started discussing religion in a wholly negative way.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. One thing i didnt see, and would ask her given the opportunity, is

Was the religion segue planned or adlib?

Either way, its a valid example. Anyone not knowing that subject is on the table has no idea who she is.

[stone space]

16. This is the thing that I find really upsetting about this.

And the fact that she decided to just blame the students rather than reflect on how her own style and methods may have contributed to the student response doesn't seem very productive either.

She calls out and chides audience members gratuitously, showing little respect for them, and then afterwards bashes them on the internet.

This is unprofessional conduct in the extreme.

I can't imagine behaving like this in a lecture.

I've never seen anything like it.

I certainly don't behave anything like this when I teach calculus or diff eq.

What's wrong with her?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. She's British.

Like Dawkins, which I think is part of the communication problem here. Culturally, I don't think it's acceptable for the audience to behave like that, there.

Which is interesting because, the floor of British Parliament is a knock-down drag-out rhetorical brawl the likes of which would make our Congress absolutely shit itself.

[stone space]

20. Well, in general, ...

...the speaker is there for the benefit of the audience, not the other way around.

And while the speaker does have the benefit of a microphone, it should not be used to bully individual audience members.

She does herself no favors by publishing this account online.

She really doesn't.

I personally would have probably walked out the moment she started chiding audience members, possibly after letting her know publicly my feelings about her approach, especially if she proceeded to call me out, also.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. To each their own.

I wouldn't walk out even if Dembski showed up to pontificate about creationism.

[stone space]

23. I don't know who Dembski is, ...

...and I don't know how he or she treats the audience.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. A creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

[stone space]

26. ID, huh?

I'll pass.

[gcomeau]

27. Oh?

She does herself no favors by publishing this account online.

She really doesn't.

She seems to have illustrated her point rather effectively from where I'm standing.

[stone space]

30. That she is unprofessional and rude?

She seems to have illustrated her point rather effectively from where I'm standing.

[gcomeau]

34. No...

That certain memes, like oh... the ones that were the exact subject of her lecture, incorporate defense mechanisms that make their hosts unwilling to tolerate the challenge or criticism of said memes.

She got handed a live example proving her point, I would have called attention to it too.

[okasha]

38. I have worked with a good many

British and British trained colleagues. Her behavior was unacceptable by the standards they adhered to.

Dawkins' rudeness neither explains nor justifies hers.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. And my experience is the opposite of yours.

So our anecdotes cancel each out today, it seems.

[okasha]

54. Really?

You've worked with British academics? I was under the impression that you did something or other technological.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. I do and I do.

Our research dept. is second to none. Training too. Granted, one of them has been living here in the US for 5 years. We imported him. He seems to like the place. Interrupt his class at your peril.

And not just British, I work with people worldwide. Even China and Russia.

[AlbertCat]

85. She calls out and chides audience members gratuitously,

Asking them why they are leaving is not chiding.

And asking in a place of higher learning why one cannot even listen to opposing ideas is a good question.


She shoulda said "Oh grow up!"

So she did quite well. Those who left are the only losers.

[gcomeau]

14. Argh...

"if she had done the same presentation but included a mixture of positive and negative examples of religion. Maybe some would have still walked out, but others would have appreciated her attempt to be fair. "

But that wasn't the point of the presentation. It wasn't a "Here are the good and bad points of religion, presented in equal measure, so as to avoid taking any position whatsoever on whether religion is good or bad" lecture. And the idea that you have to artificially balance any issue to make discussion of them "fair" is the kind of absurd bullshit that has destroyed journalism, can we not declare we should spread that particular disease to academia as well?

[pinto]

28. Journalism in its best use is neutral. Editorial Opinion pages are the place for advocacy, rebuttal.

Simplistically, journalism is the who, what, where, when in most cases. Editorial journalism is the why, contextual background, making a case in that context and advocacy for or against a position or an organization or state.

Academic lectures seem a mix of both. Arguing a point of view from a certain perspective and making a case for that in whatever the format is. It can be vigorous, pointed and yes, fair.

Research papers are a niche example. Typically very dry, they usually lay out the purpose of the research, relevant data found, results and a conclusion advocated by the authors. Alternative points of view are often noted and countered. But that format is far from a call to the "ramparts" of discourse.

Demeaning the readership in the other instances, the audience or the students seems inappropriate at best, unethical and unprofessional in the various contexts.

[gcomeau]

29. Understanding that "neutral" does not mean "artificially balanced".

And keep in mind this was a guest lecture. She was invited to talk about exactly what she was talking about. Then when that argument started touching on their religious beliefs they bolted. If I'm pinning the label of inappropriate and unprofessional on anyone in this encounter it's not the lecturer... particularly considering that pointing out what they were doing was also serving the purpose of illustrating a component of the *exact* point she was there to make in the first place. Namely that part of the memetic property of religious idea is that they insulate their carriers against any inclination to allow those memes to be challenged or criticized as a defense mechanism. (For further illustration see... this forum. On any given day you want to name)


Taking advantage of an illustrative example handed to her right there in the presentation was not in any way inappropriate.

[pinto]

31. Yeah, neutral - not artificially balanced. Agree.

Challenging folks is good, imo. Demeaning folks isn't. Effectively one keeps a discourse open. The other shuts it down. Effective was the point here, I presume. Otherwise, why do the presentation? I'm sort of at a loss to that.

I'm sure in various contexts there's a range of what's appropriate and what isn't. And in all contexts it "takes two to tango".

I think she missed the dance.

[edhopper]

32. Sometimes

the truth is biased.

If she was giving a lecture on String Theory, do you think those that don't agree with it would walk out?
And yes both sides of that debate are often a bit rude.

[pinto]

33. Mmm. See your point.

My take is they didn't walk out solely on disagreement with her point of view. Sounds like it may have been as much about her tone and interaction with her audience.

I wasn't there, so maybe some local resources could ask for personal follow up. Or some may be contributed on line.

[pinto]

35. On second thought, how can truth be biased?

I don't quite get your point. ?

[edhopper]

39. Climate change for instance

The press often gives both sides, but the truth is biased toward the science.
The press shouldn't be neutral in controversies, they should report the facts.
And if the facts back one side, then they should say the other side is wrong.

[trotsky]

62. Relevant:

“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”

― Stephen Colbert

[Htom Sirveaux]

41. The point of the presentation wasn't "why religion is awful"

so changing to said mixture would have improved the lesson by keeping the focus on memes and not on her personal opinion of religion, which she was not there to teach.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Religion is an example of a meme.

This has actually been discussed before, but there is a parallel between the vast diversity of life on earth by way of evolution, and the vast diversity of religions held by various humans, by way of the same mechanism.

Daniel Dennett has some great material on how religions evolve, and Blackmore's prime area of study is the mechanism by which those religions get around.

Anyone who went to her lecture not knowing that was a likely topic, doesn't know her at all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

68. Something seems to be going unstated here.

I've repeatedly said that issue is not inclusion of religion, or of some negative examples of religion, but the discussion appears to be proceeding as though I had said "she shouldn't have discussed religion at all." Why is that?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. It is as puzzling to me as some people's apparent expectation that she include something nice

about religion to balance the narrative.

"Why is that?".

But I do apologize for answering a question with a question. Normally I try not to do that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

75. It's part of good communication to establish connections with your audience.

When people like you and trust you, they pay more attention and give more consideration to what you have to say. So as a good speaker whose goal is to win a fair hearing for your ideas, establishing yourself as someone who is likeable and trustworthy is part of the job. It's why politicians thank local dignitaries, tell jokes to open speeches, and offer stories about local people in the most insignificant of towns, even if they hate being there. They are taking the audience seriously and respecting them, so that the audience will take them seriously and respect them in return.

Professor Blackmore's audience clearly included those with positive experiences of religion. By feeling entitled to ignore those experiences completely, she was sending the message that she couldn't be bothered to understand or sympathize with her audience. The audience reacted accordingly, and she was too wrapped up in her narrative of "religious people are close-minded" to see that the whole thing might have been avoided if she had considered the basic guidelines of being a good public speaker. Being a known atheist, even a vociferous one, does not place her above those guidelines.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. I love the lack of self-consciousness of people

who will walk out on a lecture telling the lecturer that she needs an open mind, when they're the ones actually demonstrating with their actions that their own minds are closed.

[stone space]

18. You are missing something here.

They didn't walk out telling her anything, according to her own description.

They were walking out, apparently silently and without disruption, when she decided to call them out and chide them out of the blue.

I called out to some as they left, ‘Can’t you even listen to ideas you disagree with? In Oxford, of all places, you should be open-minded enough to hear alternative views’.

Only after that did they offer their opinion:

But no. They said I needed an open mind. This really got to me

Wow! It really got to her, huh?

Then why did she call them out using those words in the first place if she is so sensitive about it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. I didn't miss that they were leaving silently.

But the fact that they were confronted about their actions has nothing to do with the fact that they were so closed-minded that they couldn't even stand to hear things with which they disagreed. Whether they left silently or saying what they did, they were actively seeking to avoid hearing and considering anything she might say.

[cbayer]

80. You are making some major assumption here based on the single report of the

person who delivered this lecture.

If I may, that is very close minded.

Without having heard from the other side, I think it is unreasonable to assume that they were out of line. Even based on her own report, I think it is safe to conclude that she was insensitive to say the least and more likely highly insulting.

What you present are not facts. They are conclusions based on a highly biased report.

You, like she, are making major assumptions about these people without even knowing what their experience was.

Have you never walked out of something in protest? I did that as young as 12 years old and will continue to do it when appropriate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

81. No, I can't remember ever walking out of anything in protest.

It's possible I did as a child, since it's a childish gesture.

I think unless you're blindsided by being dragged to something at the last minute, you generally know what you're getting into when you attend a lecture. (Or, I guess, unless you make it a habit of simply going to lectures without knowing anything about the speakers.)

[cbayer]

82. A childish gesture? It can be a profound political statement.

But I guess if you are so astute that you have definitive knowledge about everyone you go to hear speak, then you have a point.

Again, you are making judgmental conclusions about people that you haven't' even heard from.

Honest answer - were you familiar with this person before you read this thread? If you read her own website, would you have anticipated that this is what she would have said?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. Yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for the 'Code' people either.

Code Red, Code Pink, or any of the other groups who make 'profound political statements' by being rude at lectures or press conferences.

I think it makes the left look about as dimwitted as the tea party types.

Did I know her before the thread? No. Am I going to waste my time reading her website? Also no. I'm just not that invested in 'winning' an online argument. So feel free to count this one as a win, because I'm going on to more interesting threads.

[cbayer]

87. Being disruptive is entirely different than silently walking out.

In fact, it's kind of the opposite.

See you in the next thread!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Couldn't she just say positive things about religion?

Why did she have to be so offensive?



BAD AHTSEIT! BAD!!1!!!

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. Hypothetical: you sign up for college lecture on statistics.

The lecturer you signed up for is sick that night, and when you get there, the replacement turns out to be William Dembski (who is indeed a Ph.D in mathematics), and he proceeds to use the lecture as a vehicle for his version of "intelligent design".

You're telling me you wouldn't either walk out or demand your money back?

[trotsky]

12. Her lecture was on memes.

meme: An element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

Do you think religion is a meme?

[Htom Sirveaux]

42. I'm assuming that religion qualifies.

I don't have a problem with her including religion. I don't even have an issue with her including some negative examples of religion. My issue is that by discussing religion ONLY in a negative light, she took the focus off of her actual topic and onto her personal opinions about religion, thus inhibiting learning. Then she called out students who chose to leave and attacked them as closed-minded. And it hasn't occurred to her that she might bear any of the blame for their reaction.

It was bad teaching by someone who apparently assumed that she could do this because she's known to be a vociferous atheist.

[okasha]

49. By the definition given,

"meme" is simply a neologism for "custom," so of course religion would qualify. So would differentiating between forks used for salad and forks for the meat course.

[trotsky]

61. Must every lecture be "fair and balanced?"

I've had many classes where professors only gave their point of view. For instance, my biology prof only talked about evolution and never creationist or "intelligent design" theories. Was that bad teaching since he didn't cover all viewpoints?

[Htom Sirveaux]

64. Bad comparison, creationism/ID isn't science,

and therefore can be properly excluded from a science classroom. But suppose it was a class on international politics, and the professor chose to discuss only the "realist" theory of international relations in a positive light, and denigrated or ignored liberalism and constructivism. That would be bad teaching.

"Here are positive examples of religion as meme" would not have fallen outside the scope of a lecture on memes, and as I've said, would have kept the focus on memes (which is what she was there to teach) and not on her personal opinion of religion (which she was not there to teach and which distracted from her actual subject).

[trotsky]

66. From your perspective it isn't.

Other people believe otherwise. I'm sure they would be offended by what you just said. Perhaps offended enough to even get up and walk out of a lecture. Shame on you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

67. And I would not change my lecture to avoid that outcome.

Just as I would not be criticizing Blackmore if she had included a mixture of positive and negative examples of "religion as meme" and people still walked out.

[trotsky]

69. But you still haven't explained why she should have been required to do that for a lecture. n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

76. You and AtheistCrusader both ask this question.

I hope you don't mind if I link to a common response here.

[gcomeau]

15. You mean...

...if I paid for a lecture on statistics then a bait and switch was pulled and I got a lecture on magic (I really don;t give a crap whether the lecture on magic is delivered by a PhD or not)?

No, I for one wouldn't walk out. I would however mercilessly rip the guy since I'm familiar with all the bullshit tricks he uses to fake his way through his arguments.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Um what the heck does this have to do with the invited speaker speaking at the lecture she

was invited to speak at?

I was invited to give a lecture on memes by the “Oxford Royale Academy”, an institution that has nothing to do with the University of Oxford but hosts groups of several hundred 17-18 year-olds for two weeks of classes and, I guess, some kind of simulation of an ‘Oxford experience’.

Oh right, it has nothing at all to do with it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

43. She was invited to speak on memes, not "why religion is awful".

Just as in my hypothetical, Dembski was invited to speak on statistics, not ID.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Perhaps you ought to re-read the essay.

religion was used as an example of a memeplex, there were other examples used as well. Her focus in the lecture was on memeplexes and on how memeplexes are used, and their use is routinely "not good".

It appears to me that any negative views on religion just get rejected here as unacceptable simply for being negative. What you have engaged in is known as "tone trolling", and it is routinely used by people to dismiss criticisms they cannot refute by attacking the form in which the criticism is delivered rather than the content.

[Htom Sirveaux]

46. No, as I told Trotsky, I have no problem with her

including some negative examples of religion, but including only negative examples was clearly a distraction that inhibited learning. If she had included a mixture, and students still walked out, I'd be far more sympathetic to her.

[Htom Sirveaux]

48. The chairman apologized? I didn't see that.

Where was it?

[okasha]

51. Not sure where I saw that.

Will delete unt I have time to locate the source.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Any luck?

I still haven't found any official comment on the whole thing from the venue/hosts.

[Jim__]

11. "... you should be open-minded enough to hear alternative views."

Really? This is what she believes?

From Blackmore's introduction to her book Conversations on Consciousness:

Secondly, I have been through all of this myself. I long ago concluded that free will must be an illusion, and so over the years I have practiced not believing in it. Eventually, with long practice, it becomes perfectly obvious that all the actions of the body are the consequences of prior events acting on a complex system; then the feeling of making free conscious decisions simply melts away. I had expected to find others who had gone through this somewhat disturbing change. Yet I was wrong. Everyone had something to say about free will, and some people had agonized about it. Dan Wegner and Pat both expressed the 'as if' option; yet, withthe possible exception of Francis, no one completely rejected the notion of free will as I do, and no one seemed to share my experience of letting it go.Indeed Susan and John did not seem to believe me that it is possible to throw it off.

... it becomes perfectly obvious that all the actions of the body are the consequences of prior events acting on a complex system; ...

Based on her claimed belief about free will and all the actions of the body, it should be perfectly obvious to her why these people got up and left - and that this action does not involve any choice. Or, maybe, things are not as perfectly obvious to her as she proclaims. And that implies she may not take being insulted at a lecture as passively as she believes she would.

Also, her proclaimed views on determinism strongly imply that her approach is wrong, but the thought never seems to cross her mind:

Walking miserably up the High Street I felt profoundly depressed at the state of the world. I could cheer myself with the thought that I’d learned something. I learned that Islam has yet another nasty meme-trick to offer – when you are offended put your hands over your ears and run away. This would be funny if it weren’t so serious. These bright, but ignorant, young people must be among the more enlightened of their contemporaries since their parents have been able and willing to send them on this course to learn something new. If even they cannot face dissent, or think for themselves, what hope is there for the rest? And what can I do?

[stone space]

13. Calling out and chiding audience members as they leave?

Seriously?

Extremely unprofessional and demonstrative of an extreme sense of privilege and entitlement.

[mr blur]

19. Oh do try harder.

Or just don't bother.

[stone space]

21. Please don't tell me how to post. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

37. We are pretty much allowed to express our opinions of other people's posts here.

And telling somebody that they should stop telling you how to post has sort if an inherent contradiction that is inescapable.

[stone space]

40. OK, well...I'll try harder then.

Are you up for a mathematics thread?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. that was the suggestion.

[rug]

24. I would have stayed until she said "memeplexes".

[cbayer]

58. Too bad that this experience apparently did nothing but reinforce her dogmatic

beliefs about religion and the religious.

She goes into a room, insults and mocks people and their beliefs, then is astonished when they give her feedback that she made them feel ignorant.

And all she learned is yet another negative thing about Islam. Then she calls them ignorant, completely validating how they told her she made them feel.

Unexpected? Pretty much anyone could have predicted this outcome unless they were blinded by their own prejudices.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Not all muslims reject evolution.

I'll take a pass on analyzing the merits of the kneeling thing.

[cbayer]

60. I don't understand the point of your post.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Oh

"She goes into a room, insults and mocks people and their beliefs, then is astonished when they give her feedback that she made them feel ignorant.

And all she learned is yet another negative thing about Islam. Then she calls them ignorant, completely validating how they told her she made them feel. "

Talking about evolution does not automatically make all muslims feel ignorant, as not all muslims reject evolution. The problems in that lecture started BEFORE she talked about the kneeling thing, or 'washing' in the Ganges. Apparently the audience happened to contain members of the Islamic faith that also happen to reject evolution, but that is not universal, nor a given.*

As for ignorance, one could certainly assume the audience was ignorant of who Susan Blackmore IS, and the things she talks about.


*predicated on the assumption that her narrative of the event is accurate.

[cbayer]

71. It was not her talking about evolution that caused them to feel that way.

You are going to have to read beyond the first few paragraphs if you want to discuss this. She noted that one person appeared to be uncomfortable when she brought up evolution. Exactly one person squirmed.

She saw that as a problem instead of an opportunity, and therein lies her entire problem. She has obviously been to the RD school of "never back down" and "always blame a bad result on the ignorance of the audience".

I never heard of Susan Blackmore before you posted this article. She was a guest speaker at a 2 week experience for kids preparing for college.

Her resume is very sparse. She has written a book on "memes". Should they have known who she was…. or exactly how insulting she might be? Did you know who she was? Have you read her book?

Did you know that her masters degree was in parapsychology?

Let's make a bet right now. I will bet that she is never, ever asked to return to this conference.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Really? Blackmore is one of the most prominent Atheists in the 'activist' community, outside the

original 'four horsemen of the counter-apocalypse'.

"She saw that as a problem instead of an opportunity, and therein lies her entire problem."

I would like to ask her if some of the following tone of the talk was planned, or adlibbed after she noticed that listener's behavior.
In a related field to parapsychology, specific to female authors/researchers/speakers in the field, you might also find the work of Dr. Susan Clancy of Harvard to be interesting, she focuses on memory research, starting with but not limited to people who claim to have had alien abduction or encounters. She performed the research and presentation that helped me revise my outlook on people who made such claims, rather than assuming them to be crazy or stupid. Understanding brought humanization/empathy, that sort of thing. Good stuff. Some of her work also delves into belief in contact with angels/gods, etc. There's a lot of overlap there. (I've been fortunate enough to meet Clancy at work, sadly, I don't think Blackmore has ever been invited. She'd go over swimmingly here.)

Anyway, back to Blackmore.

Yes, I've been following her for years. She has several books, actually.
She was a guest speaker at TAM last year too. Quite entertaining. She also talks about her history as a parapsychologist and why.

[cbayer]

73. Well, I don't expect to hear much more from her.

Unless, of course, she changes her approach.

I suspect she will ride into the sunset with the other horsemen. The only thing I can find on a search about this is her piece, which you have put up here, and one by PZ Myers entitled "Islamists have brain leeches!".

Classy stuff.

She might be great, but her presentation at this conference was an unmitigated disaster which was made worse by her post about it. I hope she has the capacity to step back and learn something from it.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Nah, she'll be around.

I won't take your earlier bet about that particular venue though. I haven't seen a statement from the hosts about the event.

Edit: Though, I would point out, Dawkins himself is their most prominent featured past speaker.

[cbayer]

77. Yes, she and the horsemen will have their audience, I am sure.

But they will fade and fade fast.

I haven't seen a statement from anyone at all, except PZ Myers, as I noted.

First on the list = name recognition, not most prominent. I can't tell when he spoke there, btw.

[Starboard Tack]

78. Sad! I guess she got her comeuppance. Shame on her.

Not the best of ideas to start a lecture by alienating half your audience. Doesn't say much for either her professionalism or her self awareness, especially as she recounts the event with a sense of hubris and nary a tinge of humility.

I'm thinking that the intellectual entitlement we atheists enjoy is far from being either a meme, or something to be proud of.

Always disappointing to see such shoddy behavior from someone previously respected.

[MellowDem]

86. If half your audience is offended by criticism of ideas...

Then there is no shame for her to feel.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Oh, is that why they walked out?

I thought it was because she was intentionally insulting by using cheap tricks. I seriously doubt that all those who walked were Muslim. I would probably have walked out too. I have little time for religion, and far less for distasteful arrogance.
It is far easier to dismiss those one disagrees with, than to support the obnoxious behavior of some who one agrees with on an intellectual level.
In my world, behavior trumps intellect every time.

[MellowDem]

90. It's far easier to be offended...

Then to listen to seriously listen to challenges to one's own belief system and critically examine them, especially when your belief system enjoys such privileged status. The question is why they were offended. Was it a good reason?

It reminds me of conservatives offended by those who similarly criticize the US by offering perspectives rarely seen in mainstream society.

[Starboard Tack]

91. As it is far easier to retain an audience by not insulting it.

They were offended because she was purposely being offensive.

By the time I arrived at a slide calling religions (Richard’s fault!) ‘Viruses of the mind’

WTF did she expect? Applause? She is an arrogant disrespectful fool.

She follows these insults with the Danish cartoons. That's like pissing on a crucifix to a Catholic. If you think that is a civilized challenge in an academic environment, then I have nothing more to say.

If you want to seriously challenge deeply held beliefs, try coming from a position of respect. Just a tip.

[MellowDem]

93. Religious beliefs don't deserve respect automatically...

It's precisely because they are rarely challenged through ridicule or insult that it needs to be heard, especially by true believers, if they want a fuller perspective.

Your problem is your priority is retaining an audience, not challenging them.

Again, why we're they offended, and is that a good enough reason to walk out? I don't think so, but the privileged don't often have much of a stomach for their beliefs being challenged.

[Starboard Tack]

95. I don't respect beliefs, I respect people.

Obviously, it was a good enough reason to walk out and she acted surprised. If you want to keep an audience, don't insult it. If you expect people to listen to you, earn their respect. They came with respect and she flushed it down the toilet. More fool her.
Same as people come here with open minds until they get personally insulted. Then they use the "ignore" feature.

[MellowDem]

96. They chose to be personally insulted...

Because they didn't like her criticism of their beliefs.

That's on them.

Her objective isn't to keep an audience. If someone can't handle having their beliefs challenged, that's on them, and shows their insecurity.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Right

People choose to be insulted and public speakers should not try to engage or keep their audience. The job of a public speaker is to challenge their audience by insulting it in order to demonstrate the insecurity of its members.

I trust you are not a professional public speaker.

[Warren Stupidity]

89. There is some theory in play here, perhaps part of our indoctrinated cultural expectations,

that ideas should be expressed only in ways that are non-controversial, that do not challenge us, that if you say something negative about X, you must comfort those who believe X with something positive about X as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I'm reminded of "The First Amendment doesn't exist so we can talk about the weather"

[Warren Stupidity]

97. If the situation were just slightly different, if instead she were lecturing about

for example the techniques of persuasion used by e.g. the republican party's political propaganda machine, and if republicans in the audience were getting up and walking out muttering about how offensive her lecture was, would anyone here be denouncing her lack of "fairness"?

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Or even peer reviewed research about climate change.