Sorry I forgot to post on this earlier, but last week I was asked to appear on a thing called BLoggingheads, where two people record themselves discussing a topic and then video of them each staring at their computers goes online to accompany the audio. In a way I enjoyed it, and in another way it was extremely exhausting, which is probably the reason I’ve put off posting about it.
My discussion partner was Ann Althouse, a law professor and frequent contributor to Bloggingheads. The higher-ups at Bloggingheads wanted me on because of the to-do surrounding the Dawkins affair, but Ann told me that our segment would be airing as part of the site’s “Science Saturday,” so we would need to touch on some sciencey stuff. That sounded great to me, because honestly there’s only so much time I can spend on why it’s important for our community to not be openly hostile to women.
Things didn’t go as I planned, though. While Althouse agreed with me that Dawkins was out of line and my sentiments were fair, she kept saying things that required me to unpack a lot of stuff before moving on. For instance, she agreed that Dawkins was smug, but aren’t all atheists smug and that’s kind of the problem? So I had to back up and explain that no, atheists are not all smug just because they think they know the truth. Religious people, I tried to explain, think they know the truth and further many think that others who don’t know the truth are going to burn in Hell when they die. I would have gone on to explain how these same people believe this entire Universe was created especially for them, and what’s more smug than that, but Althouse kept interrupting me. Fair enough – I suspect that I’m becoming well-known for my ability to take 30 minutes to fully answer a question while taking numerous asides to add some color and explanation. But I felt that many times I was interrupted before I had even begun to flesh out my point, which got to be quite frustrating by the end of our hour-long chat.
The other notable frustrating time came near the end, when Althouse continually pressed me for dating advice for the poor awkward guys who just want to show up at a conference and get laid. This was the inspiration for my YouTube post on Friday – I had trouble understanding why a clearly intelligent person like Althouse would first of all assume that a man who invites a stranger to his hotel room at 4am is somehow shy and awkward as opposed to bold and confident (as the man actually was), and second that she would shift the focus from making the community more welcoming to women to making it easier for men in the community to have sex. Like I said, frustrating.
So, here’s the video in full. I’ll leave it to you guys to debate how I played the hand I was dealt.
Wait, what does that dingbat Althouse have to do with science?
She’s rather loopy — it was a poor match for you.
I didn’t know anything about her prior to agreeing, except for that she was “on my side.” Bah!
Being perhaps best known for this, she was a terrible choice of pairing.
Althouse? ALTHOUSE?? Yikes.
I must say I am disappointed to see this post and the snarky comments by the nattertariat below. I watched much of the bloggingheads webcast with you and Althouse and thouhgt you were great. But I suppose you wouldn’t want to get “kicked out of the club” so you must trash her after-the-fact, but whatever…
Althouse is a semi-celebrity because of hard work and a great personality and point-of-view. She was not thrust in the limelight because someone much more famous than her—unfairly—called her a whiny snot. I have no problem with folks patting themselves on the back, I only ask that they actually accomplish something first.
Which brings me to my final point. I see several comments disparaging the selection of Althouse on “Science Saturday.” So I did a lit search on Rebecca Watson and I did not see too many peer-reviewed studies. In fact, my sources (okay, it was Wikipedia) suggests she is a former juggler and street magician with a hobbiest’s interest in science. I fail to see how Althouse is any less qualified to speak on the topic of science than Watson. Being an athesist no more makes one an expert on “science” (which is a pretty broad topic) than being a vegan makes me an expert in botany.
It’s a really cute idea though. Stay gold, Ponyboy!
Thanks for dropping by, Ann!
Is she in Wisconsin? Because that’s where this comment and “psatt”‘s comment (below) originated.
For such a “skeptical” chick, you sure are willing to leap on lame conspiracy theories. The population of Wisconsin is over 5.6 million people. Sigh.
Ayup. She’s actually a law professor at UW-Madison.
@mrhinkydink:
“For such a “skeptical” chick, you sure are willing to leap on lame conspiracy theories. The population of Wisconsin is over 5.6 million people. Sigh.”
I’m not sure it counts as a “conspiracy theory” if it only requires the participation of one person.
In fact, I’m not sure there’s anything particularly implausible about somebody pseudonymously posting nasty comments on a blog where they’ve been criticized. Sure, there are 5.6 million people in Wisconsin, but I’d be amazed if more than a few dozen of them had enough devotion to Ann Althouse to take the time to smugly insult her critics on the internet.
Ooh, ooh, call me, call me! I can answer that one!
You don’t have to publish peer-reviewed papers to be able to speak competently about science. You just have to understand it, and you have to get it right.
Althouse doesn’t understand science in the slightest, and she always gets it wrong. Look at her stance on climate change, for instance, or her silly crusade to defend her favorite lightbulbs.
Watson, on the other hand, has for example done a fine job on explaining alternative medicine and how homeopathy doesn’t work. She actually understands the basic science and communicates it well.
Get it? One has demonstrated her misunderstandings of science, the other has educated people about science.
Rebecca, I happened to be listening to the podcast just now as I checked the post and the whole time I’m thinking that you’re an absolute saint for sitting through that. I almost collapsed in frustration whenever she’d go on her 5 min asides that wouldn’t let you get a word in. It wasn’t just that she was (say) asking you for dating advice on behalf of “socially awkward” men — that would have been fine if just stated plainly but every question like that was prefaced with so much hand-wringing.
Sainthood nomination in the works.
Second that nomination.
From what I understand the person you are talking to in a Bloggingheads discussion is rarely “on your side”. It’s meant to be a debate and those aren’t interesting if you both agree.
Unfortunately when it comes to Science Saturdays this usually means someone who is intelligent versus crazy babblers.
Ann ALTHOUSE?!?!?!
What, you couldn’t find a spot on Glenn Beck’s show?
Althouse lives on the frozen side of crazy. Her comprehension of feminism (among other things) is stunted; in its place, she substitutes a hatred for Bill Clinton’s penis and a glowering disregard for younger women. She’s also a complete scam artist and opportunist in her own regard.
It’s a shame that you guys didn’t get around to her views on climate change…
Yeah, her weird baggage about feminism was another frustrating aspect. It came out of nowhere, to me, and I wasn’t sure how to deal with it.
Well, you know, not everyone’s a feminist. Vive la différence, and all that.
I thought you handled Ms. Althouse (spell check suggestions: Alehouse, Outhouse)well.
If someone doesn’t have the time to listen to the entire show, these twelve seconds are a good sample… http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37611?in=50:05&out=50:17
Your comments about alternative medicine did annoy me. While I am not blind to the flakiness of alternative medicine, I feel that industrial medicine needs just as much skepticism, if not more. It is certainly costing us enough, and our lives are literally at stake.
I recycled my comments at my blog… http://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/lived-happily-ever-after/ You had indirectly inspired another post earlier… http://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/huge-obama-administration-scandal/
Just finished listening. One side of the conversation was excellent; Althouse is a clueless flibbertigibbet. If you do bloggingheads again, get a better partner!
Hey that’s a bit pejudiced against flibbertigibbets, we can’t help it.
I don’t see why you think it was a weird interview. (Because she had disagreements with you or “baggage?”) She may be a crank, but voicing those kinds of disagreements allows you to further your own arguments in a more interesting and effective way because it’s dialectical. The alternative is a stooge, and well, that’s boring. To be honest, I thought you had it fairly easy (watch the bloggingheads with Singer and Cowen for an example of hard). And about her cutting you off, you shouldn’t have allowed that. You could have continued talking over her like Hitchens, or just politely asked her to allow you to finish your thought.
“I don’t see why you think it was a weird interview.”
Because I’m not a polemicist and I have no desire to out-shout an opponent when I think I’m having a discussion.
It did give you an opportunity to express how you felt in person. She was just far less relaxed than you on video, and that adrenaline had a negative effect on the interview.
Eh? That wasn’t my point. My point was that you were having a discussion with disagreements–and that’s a good thing. I don’t think you need to be a polemicist (and Hitchens handling of people interrupting him isn’t polemic or hostile; it’s actually fairly polite yet confident).
Would have been nicer to hear an interesting conversation that was enlightenimg than the sport of an arguement, we should leave that to Jerry springer and Bill ORielly.
I thought it was an interesting discussion, but I’d like to know why you didn’t think it was interesting.
Rebecca was able to reiterate in person the points she and many others had made so many times in text. I enjoyed agreeing with her.
An interesting conversation might have been why are men socially expected to make all the moves when women have as much sexual desire. What lessons can we all learn outside heterosexuality from Sapphic women or the transgendered.
“My point was that you were having a discussion with disagreements”
You seem to have not understood Rebecca’s point. She is saying that it wasn’t a discussion. You need two people willing to discuss the subject for that
Perhaps you are not familiar with the definition of polemicist/i>, to wit (from the Canadian Oxford dictionary:
“Polemic, 1. a controversial discussion. 2. the art of controversial discussion, esp. in theology. 3. involving dispute; controversial.”
I think it’s quite fair, and not in any way controversial nor negative, to say that you are indeed a polemicist.
Whoops. Sorry about the html fail.
or put yor fingers in your ears and hummed until she stopped talking.
or….put yor fingers in your ears and hummed until she stopped talking.
Well that comment was supposed to go higher up under fwahts comment but didn’t twice.
“You shouldn’t have allowed that”
Or…you shouldn’t interrupt people and talk over them because it’s disrespectful and not at all conducive to civil dialogue.
Yeah, I think I like that solution better.
I think scientifically speaking she was trying to see how she could use the oportunity of the interview to get you to say something controversial and scientifically increase her own public profile. That didn’t happen, you did well :)
Can’t listen to it right now… baby sleeping nearby. But I can see the salient point without hearing anything; Your head is bigger than her head, so you win!!!!!!
Imagine a dog confronted with a crossword puzzle. Imagine the look on its face when you tell this poor little canine that it has to solve that puzzle if it wants dinner. Imagine that quizzical look, with its ears half-cocked and its head tilted to the side as it ponders, lost in complete confusion.
That’s how I responded to half of what Althouse said. A lot of it just came out of nowhere. Somehow, blogs are also science? I think? Also, the purpose of conferences is to get laid, and now that we can talk to one another on the internet, that’s the *only* purpose? Interesting.
Yes, that was really weird. A big WTF moment for me. It’s like saying that once you introduce women, whatever conferences were about before when only men could attend or did attend, all that goes bye-bye and they become only about hooking up. I guess we better start calling them fuckfests instead of conferences.
Ok, I watched most of it. If you are going to do a bloggingheads as though you were the bloggingerheader (as she represents) then try knowing something about the topics at hand. Like, don’t not know about dictionary vs. actual atheists, for instance, when speaking to Rebecca Watson. Or that there is no boycott. Etc. Rebecca you did a great job not rolling your eyes out of your head. Musta hurt.
I think a lot of the awkwardness stems from the fact that she is a real outsider — not necessarily because she is a conservative. I think you did a fine job handling her questions.
If you squint your eyes and tilt your head a bit you can see the basis for her perspective. She understands it can be hard for guys to approach girls and having a person publicly and aggressively attack a guy for being forward (even if he really was being inappropriate) might be discouraging to other people with good intentions. Probably perspective she’s picked up from her new husband.
Although she did seem a little far out here, I don’t think she had bad intentions here and I don’t think she deserves the kind of venom you see directed her way (or you, for that matter). The Internet’s kind of a messed up place. Watching the diavlog I didn’t even get the sense she was necessarily being adversarial.
The first 20 minutes were interesting and I thought she seemed very open minded and cool but then the rest started to get a little tedious. She was talking over you but I think you handled it quite well and got your points across when you did manage to get a word in edgewise. She seems like a nice lady, just maybe a little clueless about a few topics. :)
There’s something about the way she sidestepped the whole mind-over-matter message from The Secret that really annoyed me. She turned it into taking away people’s hope when they’re ill, when in reality the message from the Secret is putting unnecessary burden on people to use their own power of mind and ‘vibrations’ to cure themselves. The people behind the Secret, Esther and Jerry Hicks (who were edited out of the final version due to financial issues) actually advise people that when you are ill that going to the doctor is ‘looking for trouble.’ And that the entity that she channels, “Abraham”, can help you cure yourself of any disease known to man by in 30 days by helping you change your attitude or ‘vibration.’ Oprah has endorsed these people on many occasions and they have books and CDs on NYT Bestseller list.
Ironically, Jerry Hicks was recently diagnosed with leukemia and has opted out of “Abraham’s” advice and is going for full chemotherapy.
You don’t have to sit and watch the bobbing heads on Blogginheads. There is a link to download an mp3 file.
I used to do that, but I even found the Science Saturday annoying. I have downloaded this mp3 and will listen sometime in the next week, but it seems that my decision to skip downloading it on a regular basis will be confirmed.
Bloggingheads is generally awful although in fairness I gave up on it many moons ago and it may have improved. Though the fact that Ann Althouse was the other blogginghead does not fill me with hope.
Wow that was frustrating. Althouse doesn’t seem to have the ability to listen to another person for more than a minute before interrupting.
Has Dawkin’s responded at all to any of this? Seems enormously unfair that you seem to be on a perpetual loop of explaining how you don’t hate men, why this is an issue etc and Richard hasn’t had to explain or argue about anything. Certainly not deal with anyone as annoying as Althouse.
I think he made an official announcement after his comments on Pharyngula which was some non-committal backpedaling. Otherwise he hasn’t said much of anything.
Which may be the best thing he could do. He doesn’t seem to have the ability to look past his own privilege and see what his critics’ points are honestly. Any comments he could make would only be used to bash women in the skeptic/atheist movement more.
I wish he would! Through all of this I have been wondering if he will ever speak up again and release something — anything to, at very least, say that he’s been thinking about the issue.
I don’t think Dawkins hates women, I think he is capable of reason, but he is vastly misguided on the topic. It’s disappointing, but I reserve judgment until he speaks up on his own behalf…though if he never does, I think that would speak to his character (or lack, thereof?) more than any words could.
Maybe he´s just been getting on providing free child care at Tam, and, you know, campaigning against women being stoned to death.
Perhaps he´s got better things to do than engage in internet squabbles… especially since the last time he made a couple of comments he got harrassed and boycotted, “Dear Dick” letters, trying to bully him into changing his mind: not through discourse and reason, but pressure and dogmatic groupthink.
Dunno… maybe summat to do with that?
Yes, because clearly he was very busy doing both of those things when he decided to comment several times in the first place.
I was wondering that myself. he requested that people explain it to him, and here there was a response in the form of a thread where people did just that. Did he ever look at any of the responses he requested?
That was kinda frustrating. Althouse reminds me a lot of a chatty aunt that I have, with this ill timed, well meaning but irritating interruptions, and almost, but not quite, knowing what the hell she is talking about. I think you did great, Rebecca.
Whenever someone mentions radical femism I think of this.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll9/jakeypooywoos/feminism.jpg
I haven’t heard much from Althouse since her bizarre obsession with Jessica Valenti’s breasts.
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/ann-althouse-losses-it/
Rebecca,
While I am not an Althouse fan — even if we are just talking about Althouse on Bloggingheads — I find your characterization of the talk more than I little misleading, both in terms of content and impression.
Here are a few examples:
You were the one who raised the issue of atheist smugness and self-regard (“back-patting and aren’t-we-smart”). I actually thought that showed a nice bit of self-awareness.
Second, the idea of skeptics’ and atheists’ self-regard for their own enlightened and rational status seems to have been raised in your own discussions of sexism in the movement (and skeptics’ refusal to acknowledge it).
Third, Althouse never shouted you down, as you imply in your follow-up comment above, and neither did she set herself up as your opponent. Where did you see any of this?
Fourth, the “dating” stuff (more in the middle than the end)? That hardly seemed confrontational, or even off the subject. It emerged from the earlier topic of “Why have conferences and meet in person?” And by my count, you talked for most of that section of the encounter.
Perhaps you thought that Althouse took your initial message the wrong way — focusing more on “being cogitation of how you interact with others” and less on the “culture of rampant misogyny” — but then that means it’s your job to reassert and argue for the misogyny message.
All-in-all, I thought you both did a very good job. The conversation seemed genuine, the interaction pleasant and incisive — with enough skepticism on both sides to make it interesting (your final point on Althouse’s feminism problem and PR for atheism were very well done).
To grumble about it now in a not-very-accurate way seems at least a bit disingenuous.
Of course, you could go the PZ route, who argues here like he argues everywhere. Badly…and smugly. But as someone once said, don’t do that.
Correction to the long post above: when I typed “cogitation,” I meant “cognizant.” Sorry about that.
But while I’m back here, I want to reiterate that I thought it was a good talk on both sides. One subjective data point: you two both looked like you could actually see each other and were interacting visually and personally. Most BH diavlogs can’t pull that off.
Ugh, right off the bat Althouse is committing one of my biggest pet peeves- Overly active listening. I wont even talk to someone who vocally agrees with every other word out of my mouth.
“Uh-huh, mmm, yeeeah, yup”, drives me batty!
Aside from that I think Rebecca did a masterful job of staying focused and cutting through the crap-cake of Ann’s arguments.
I work in an office that administers graduate admissions tests. When we’re giving instructions (such as raise your hand before jumping out of your seat) and one if the examinees is saying “uh huh” after every sentence, it’s a clear sign that he/she is not listening to a word I’m saying. They will inevitably jump out of their seat without raising their hand.
On the plus side, I hadn’t heard of Rebecca Watson or Skepchick before listening to this episode of bloggingheads.
Hey jupstin,
Sounds like you’re a BH viewer, so I think you can attest to the fact that those phatic cues (uh-huh) can sometimes be helpful in what is basically a phone conversation, translated into a visual medium. Some of the worst BH episodes involve people who basically trade speaking time: you’re turn, my turn, zzzz.
As annoying at the tic can be, it has its uses.
Ah, Jupstin- Welcome! It’s great that this whole elevator issue has caused such a massive cross pollination on the net.
@psatt I’ve spent a lot of time on the radio and on the phone and there is nothing more distracting to me than someone interjecting pointless noise when I’m trying to focus my thoughts and make a point. I’ve never found it to be useful in the least.
Well, I do agree that it has its limits, but would hardly say that average phatic communication is pointless noise. It’s part of the normal give-and-take of social interaction.
(Whether or not Althouse’s use is far above average is open to debate. She may be over-the-top, to the point of distraction. Still, haven’t we all been holding forth on the phone and had to stop to ask, “uh, are you still there”?)
Remember that BH is trying to simulate, for viewers, a face-to-face and *visual* conversation. The participants have to do this without all the “pointless” things that we usually do to show our engagement with the other person (nodding, smiling, eye-contact, puzzled tilts). Even, sotto voce “uh-huhs” will get magnified when pulled into — or from — a sound-only medium.
Again, I thought it was a very good talk.
I don’t think it was too bad, but I can see how it would anoying to be on the other end. I do think you carried yourself very well.
I’m having a difficult time believing that I listened to the entire 70+ minutes, but, it was very interesting. I think that a lot of women (including trained professionals) don’t know anything about how to deal with the humiliation tactics and condescending/stupid things that men say to people. They should not be allowed to get away with it. I wonder if there are any classes a girl can equip her with effective skills that she can use to counteract such behavior.
I would like to know if Althouse even realizes that she was momentarily attempting to excuse poor behavior with the label “socially awkward”. There is no excuse for dehumanizing behavior and humiliation tactics.
Hi there!
“I had trouble understanding why a clearly intelligent person like Althouse would first of all assume that a man who invites a stranger to his hotel room at 4am is somehow shy and awkward as opposed to bold and confident (as the man actually was)”
I think that this is the crux of the whole thing. (or maybe not, I’m usually not very good at distinguishing cruxes) [cruxii? cruxae??]
I know that when I’m confronted with someone who seems angry and/or hostile, I immediately try to figure out what it was that *I* did wrong. That’s pretty much my default setting. Last week, when I was coming out of a McDonald’s Drive-thru, I accidentally cut someone off. I immediately turned and gave that person my most penitent “GeeGollySirI’mSorryandWasn’tPayingAttentionandIt’llNeverHappenEverAgain” grimace*. In response, I got an evil sneer and an upturned finger.
When I later thought about the McDonald’s parking lot, and the way that it was structured, I realized that the jerkass would have had to have been -FLYING- through that tiny parking lot at an ungodly velocity to not have seen me coming out of the drive-thru. So in my eagerness to absolve myself of guilt, I had never stopped to consider: “Maybe the other guy was just an assshole”. Had the situation been reversed, I would have paused and let the other guy go. This is because I’m *not* an asshole. That makes it difficult for me to see the world from an assholic point of view.
So when I think of some poor “shy and awkward stranger” on an elevator with the great Rebecca Watson, it seem a lot like Rebecca over-reacted. Oh the poor socially awkward nerd! But socially awkward nerds aren’t the type to corner a pretty girl on an elevator. I’m a former shy and awkward nerd myself, and I’d never have done something like this. When I think about what *I* would have done if *I* were alone on an elevator at 4am with a sleepy Rebecca Watson, then I’m forced to consider that just maybe, the guy was just a total asshole. 0_o
[shrugs]
— Craig
*Not to be confused with the purple McDonald’s mascot
You went to a McDonald’s? To the drive-thru? What an asshole! Or were you just lost and didn’t actually buy anything? Okay, never mind then. Err, what were we talking about?
.
Good point about about points of view. There’s an awful lot of projection going on in this kerfluffle. (Is that now the official term?) Some people might think this is good – “I’m putting myself in someone else’s shoes; how could that be bad?”, but they’re reacting as they would in the circumstance, not as other people would, and they are only seeing it from one viewpoint, not from both. Don’t just picture yourself in the situation just as you are, but the way other people, good and bad, angry and aggressive or calm and polite, with unknown agendas would act. View this from both sides, not just one, and consider views other people point out that you would not have thought of yourself before trying to judge the situation and the best way to behave in various social situations.
.
For example, the “walking in the same general direction as a single woman who I don’t know and doesn’t know me (I was going to say “strange woman”, but that’s ambiguous), at night in a poorly-lit area with no other people around.” Before reading Amy’s post a couple of weeks ago, my natural inclination would be to walk fairly close to her, to provide an ally and potential assistance if needed. Because two people are (unconfirmed factoid) much less likely to get assaulted, robbed, run over by passing drunk drivers, or just hassled than two lone individuals. But since she doesn’t know me, I’m a potential mugger, rapist or drunken annoyer, etc. so it’s better to drop back and provide cover from a distance. And if it’s a really scary neighborhood and I’m feeling particularly paranoid, make sure I have my cell phone. Learned something new. Isn’t that the point of skepticism?
.
That said, parking lot designers are definitely in the pay of the Auto Body Repair Cabal.
@Buzz: That’s just it. I think that a lot of guys _think_ they’re putting themselves in the other person’s shoes (i.e.: “Hey, if I politely asked a girl out on an elevator, I’d be mortified if she later called me a creeper on YouTube!”) when they should take a moment to ask themselves: “Wasn’t this person ACTUALLY a creeper?”. I kinda think he was.
Side note: After Dawkins’ mocking e-response to “Muslima” on PZ’s Blog, I wished I could just have met him and asked: “Would it have made you feel better if the guy on the elevator had been wearing a turban?”. ^_^
I thought you did great fielding her questions. Ann wasn’t terribly bad, either, except for in a few spots where you could tell she wanted to skewer us atheists (things like, “Why in the world would atheists go to conferences?!” and “Placebos and religion are great medicine for the mind!”). You could tell the elephant in the room was that she thinks atheism is a just another religious cult. The ending talk about Dawkins and your response to his dismissal of you and of problems of sexism in the atheist community was one of the highlights that everyone should see.
mrhinkydink does have something of a point, one that I suspect PZ Myers would probably be proselytizing too (as he has for others who represented an academic background they did not have) if he weren’t marketting Watson so heavily.
For those who don’t know, Watson has a BSc from Boston University. But the cirriculum for the program stipulates that 17 of the 32 courses can not be in the sciences but must be in the liberal arts. I think it would be interesting to know what sciences, if any, those other 15 course were in.
Anyway, the point being that Watson is no more qualified to discuss “some sciencey stuff” than is Althouse, or perhaps only marginally so.
That being said, I am not very familiar with the Bloggingheads program’s history or MO. Do they regularly have non-science folks dicussing “some sciencey stuff”?
I’ve approved this comment only because I find it rather frightening and would prefer it be made public. You see, the only time I’ve really discussed my educational background is when I talk about how I do not have a background in science at all (my degree is in communication, a fact that I joke about quite often and talk about in nearly every interview I do in which I’m asked how I got interested in skepticism). So, either you are currently lying by pretending that you don’t know what my degree is and how open I’ve been about it, or else you’ve done some creepy sleuthing that hasn’t included actually watching my talks or reading my words.
Which is it, exactly?
Hey wait a minute, when were you at BU? Did you ever take my class in human evolution?? Prolly before your time.
Gwatson, you are describing the requirements for virtually every BS degree. It’s called things like “Liberal Arts Distribution Requirements” and is often phrased in terms of taking classes outside a specific area (elsewhere in the regs there is often a list of proscriptions to balance this … i.e., a course in this a course in that a course in another thing)
So you are really blowing hot air as far as I can tell.
I didn’t take your class but I did take a high level anthro class called Origins of Man. I don’t recall the professor’s name but she was a saint. She soon realized that as enthusiastic as I was, I was the only one in the class who wasn’t planning to be an anthropologist when I grew up. (I took a lot of classes that College of Communication students generally didn’t take.) She was super cool about spending a little extra time with me to help me keep up in the class.
Also, I wonder if you’d be so bold as to tell us all your full name.
In reply to comment #2.
Sure. Greg(ory) Watson. You want birth certificate data? I could send you that privately if you’d like. I trust you not to misuse it.
Seriously.
I’m not poking porkys at you, or anything like.
In reply to comment #1.
Frightening? How on earth is it frigthening? I did no creepy sleuthing at all. I read it on a couple of other blogs — it’s a pretty darn big blogoshpere out there. In would seem to me then that it is on the public record and is therefore public information.
If I am wrong, and that is neither your degree, nor the correct cirriculum, I would be completely happy to apologise and withdraw that statement.
Where did you read it? I’d love to see the link.
OK, sure.
I think I initially read it at ERV: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
I also read it at integral math: http://integralmath.blogspot.com/
I may also have read it at grey lining, but I’m not sure about that: http://greylining.wordpress.com/
For all I know, you may think these folks are enemies (or perhaps not), as do many gender feminists; however, for me, they represent just another point of view, of which there are many spread around the blogiverse.
No direct links? Seriously. I’m very curious and I’m sure you don’t want us all to think that you came up with that steaming pile on your own.
“… I’m sure you don’t want us all to think that you came up with that steaming pile on your own.”
Sheesh, you do just love inuendo and insinuation, don’t you.
Is it a steaming pile? Are you now saying that that is not your degree, and/or that that is not the associated cirriculum? As I say, I’ll gladly rescind my comments if they are false or in error. See, I can do that.
Anyway, it’s not that hard. It’s only the fourth on intregralmath and sixth on ERV, but here you go:
integralmath: http://integralmath.blogspot.com/2011/07/ask-scientist-aka-rebecca-twatson-part.html
ERV: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in_vegas.php
The ERV post thread is >1500 posts and the relevant post is, I think, about halfway in.
I cannot find a reference on grey lining, so, as I say, I might be misremembering it.
Awesome. So, let me get this straight: you saw something posted on some blogs that literally called me “Twatson,” and you thought to yourself, “Gosh, these are just other points of view! Maybe they’re ‘enemies’ of Rebecca, maybe not! Regardless, this Myspace page screenshot has convinced me that I should shame Rebecca Watson because she took liberal arts classes in college. I’ll just assume that she’s lying to the world and telling everyone she has some hard science degree. No need to check this, first!”
Does that about sum it up?
“Does that about sum it up?”
Nope. Not really.
“So, let me get this straight: you saw something posted on some blogs that literally called me “Twatson,” and you thought to yourself, “Gosh, these are just other points of view!”
Yes. Are they not other points of view? I made no mention of their tone or perspective regarding their opinion of you.
“Maybe they’re ‘enemies’ of Rebecca, maybe not!”
No, I said you might think they are your enemies. I said nothing about my own thoughts on that, nor their thoughts on that, nor whether or not they were publically or universally known as enemies of you.
“Regardless, this Myspace page screenshot has convinced me that I should shame Rebecca Watson because she took liberal arts classes in college.
I don’t think I was shaming you, and I certainly included nothing shaming about taking liberal arts. I took liberal arts too. Why would I shame you for that? What I was doing however, was pointing out your apparent lack of a science background in an effort to support my argument about it being odd your being on a science show to talk ‘some sciencey stuff'”.
“I’ll just assume that she’s lying to the world and telling everyone she has some hard science degree.”
I did not in any way shape or form say that. I most emphatically did not accuse you of lying. I most emphatically did not say that you were telling the world you had a science degree. Please, do not twist my words nor claim I said things that I clearly did not say.
“No need to check this, first!”
In that, you are quite right. And for which I am clearly, and perhaps justifiably, paying the price.
So, I have now said twice that if I am wrong, and that is not your degree, and/or that is not the correct cirriculum, I would be more than happy to withdraw my comments and to clearly apologise. You have yet to state that that is not your degree. Should I/we then assume then that yes, that is in fact your degree?
As for the silly “how many clicks does it take”, there is a shorter one, but I will admit to being unable to find it at this time — perhaps justicar removed it, especially if it is in error. However, I will continue to look for it, and if it’s there, I’ll post it. If it is no longer there, I will say so.
In fact, SicPreFix (I mean Greg!), I already said what my degree was in this conversation and in every interview I’ve ever done on the subject. As a long-time reader of this site, you know that. And as a long-time reader of this site, you also know that this site often focuses on science, and so you know why I’d be interested in talking about science on a vlogcast.
So why have you put so much effort into lying, throughout this exchange? Is it because after two years, you missed stirring up anger and hatred on this site? Was trolling other sites just not giving you the release you needed?
You know, I was going to wait around to see you dig your hole deeper, but the sock puppetry is just too pathetic for words. I’m just going to boot you.
I don’t get it. What is this gwatson’s complaint? That you have a BSc from a very reputable liberal arts college?
I think all the people who are whining about that should be sure to let us see their CV, and justify their snootiness. I teach at a liberal arts college, while I got my degree at a state university, so I can compare the two firsthand: the liberal arts college provides a better, more thorough, more well-rounded education.
Who is the Greylining blog? It’s new and it reads like YNH guy. Just sayin’
http://www.bu.edu/academics/com/programs/communication-studies-prog/
Found it! Right there where it says,”To receive the BS degree from Boston University, students must complete a total of 32 courses. Of these, 17 must be in the liberal arts.” Did they change the required curricula since you’ve been there? What did you specialize in? Advertising, Public Relations, or Communications Studies?
I didn’t know that you could get a Bachelors of Science degree with 17 of 32 courses being liberal arts. I didn’t know something as “liberal” as communication even HAD a BS degree.
My university requires 35 credit hours of basics, 82 science credit hours and 6 advanced credit hours in anything for a BS degree in chemistry. Three hours is one chemistry course and one credit hour for the lab, but for some reason biology courses were four credit hours while their labs were worth zero but you still had to take the lab. That’s about 36 courses total depending on the credit hour worth of elective or advanced courses, some being four or three with a few being two.
I double majored biology and chemistry, and took those advanced credit hours in science courses anyway. I graduated in four years after 132 credit hours with a GPA of 3.38 and got an MCAT score of 29 (11 Phys, 11 Bio, 7 Verbal[fuck that section!]). I’m going back for my MS in chemistry as being a MD isn’t quite what I expected it would be. Must jump through a LOT of hoops and they don’t really appreciate an independent mind. (I suspect that the verbal section of the MCAT has some nefarious scheme to see if you are the kind of person who looks at things in a certain way that is their liking. That section SAYS there is a right answer, but I really think its about the answer they are looking for that would suggest you are a tool or something.)
Damn, I guess my university sucked for “well-rounded” education. Eh… I could care less though, I personally felt like anything else would be a waste of time. Why bother with the trivialities of worldly affairs when you could be unlocking the secrets of the universe?
To be very clear on your point here: are you saying that only people who have studied sciencey-stuff in school are qualified to talk about science? Or “enough” sciencey-stuff in school?
No. It was merely an observation that I thought it odd that someone without a science background would be guesting on a show that, at least judging by its title, is about science. Odd, that’s all.
But no, I did not say that people who don’t have a science background should be guesting on a science show — but I don’t know why they would.
Nonetheless, it was most importantly brought home to me by PZ Myers’, polite as ever, initial comment, to wit:
“Wait, what does that dingbat Althouse have to do with science?”
To which I respond:
Wait, what does … Watson have to do with science?
well PZ is a scientist that talks about skeptic things that aren’t science. I think it would be fine to have him on a show that is entitled “Science Saturday” but also for him to be on a show called “Living with Skepticism in your Daily Life”. Or “Writing about SKepticism” or “Conveying Skepticism to Others”…I don’t think he has a degree in “human behavior” or “psychology”. He’s just learned stuff in the school of life.
Non sequitor.
Rebecca works hard and in good faith to advocate science to a lay audience. That’s what she has to do with science.
gwatson wrote: “I suspect PZ Myers would probably be proselytizing too (as he has for others who represented an academic background they did not have)…”
Let’s see. Who has PZ taken to task for not having the proper academic background? Why, creationists no less! And not just creationists, but creationists who pretend they have better credentials than scientists about whatever topic. Are you seriously being so thickheaded as to accuse Rebecca Watson of pulling a stunt like that?