Don't read the comments

I've said it before; whenever I look at a news story, especially one on a controversial topic like climate change, prayer in schools, or evolution, I always regret reading the comments section.  The comments mostly seem to be written by screaming extremists.  If I had a nickel for every time I saw the words "idiot," "moron," and "dumbass" in reader comments, I'd be a rich man.  Instead, I always come away feeling like there's no hope for the human race.

Turns out that I'm not alone.  A recent study at the University of Wisconsin (described here, in an outstanding article written by Chris Mooney; but if you want to read the original paper, the link has been taken down, for some reason) looked at how people react to reading comments from other readers.  Each of the 1,183 volunteers read a blog post on the dangers of nanotechnology; the control group's version had a comments section that was neutral/civil, but the other half read one where the comments were steeped in fire and vitriol.

The results, if unsurprising, should be worrying to anyone who has an interest in seeing the public respond rationally to media.  The researchers found that across the board, the people who read the nasty comments responded by becoming more extreme in their own viewpoints.  If you already (prior to reading the post) thought that the risks of nanotechnology were minimal, you became even more sure of your position.  If you were already worried about the risks, you became more sure of that.  The audience, in other words, polarized, but not because of the facts -- the information presented was the same in both cases -- but because of watching how others responded.

This is entirely explainable based on the way our brain works.  Given emotional activation, the rational centers of our brain get out-shouted.  We react with a sort of mob mentality if we basically agreed with the comment; "Yeah!  You tell him!  Go get him!  Wish I'd thought to say that first!"  If we disagreed with the comment, our fear/anxiety centers are activated; we feel that our stance is besieged, and we double down on our beliefs because we feel they've been threatened.

Notice that in neither case do we respond logically.

This is a troubling result.  For one thing, in issues of public policy that involve science -- such as what to do about climate change, and whether intelligent design deserves equal time in public schools -- we should be striving to discuss things more rationally, not less.  The tendency of the human brain's logic centers to shut down when presented with emotionally-charged responses to media makes it even harder to keep these discussions in the realm of fact.

It's one of the inevitable downsides of the internet.  Back when I was a kid, if you didn't like a news story, you had the option to write a letter to the editor, which was tedious and time-consuming, and there was no guarantee your letter would be printed even if you sent it.  Now, anyone can respond to a news story... and does.  Regardless of whether they know anything factual about it.  They have the right to free speech, dammit, and they're gonna exercise it.  And the University of Wisconsin study shows that this is, on the whole, not a good thing for anyone.  As study co-author Dietram Scheufele said, reading the comments section of an article is like "reading the news article in the middle of the town square, with people screaming in my ear what I should believe about it."

The whole thing reminds me of a quote from the late great writer and thinker Isaac Asimov:  "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."

An open letter to religious Americans

Dear Religious People of the United States,

It's finally happened.  I've actually become really angry, and that takes a lot.

I'm not angry about your beliefs.  You are free to devote yourself to any faith you want.  I realize that there are atheists who would like to dictate to you what you can believe, who would like to change your mind for you if you're unwilling to change it yourself, but I am not one of those.  You will never get any quarrel out of me over how you spend your Sundays (or Saturdays, or whatever day you prefer to worship).

What I am angry about is the fact that the vast majority of you seem content to let narrow-minded bigots and blowhards be your spokespeople.  Men and women make statements in public forums that would be (rightly) shouted down if they were generated by any other source than the majority religion; statements that marginalize those who don't share those beliefs, which question the intelligence, patriotism, and (even) the right to citizenship of those who dissent.  And hardly a squeak of criticism is voiced.

Let's start with Sally Quinn's piece in the Washington Post, entitled "Romney Captures the God Vote at First Debate."  Responding to Governor Romney's statement that all Americans are "children of the same God," Quinn writes, "This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got 'In God We Trust' on our coins. We’ve got 'one nation under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God...  Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous."

I beg your pardon?

For one thing, Ms. Quinn, you don't know your history.  The addition of "... one nation, under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance occurred in 1954, "to acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."  "In God We Trust" was added to coinage in 1955, and became the official motto of the United States a year later.  Yes, the United States has been a majority Christian nation since its founding; but it has been only sixty years since the movement to make Christian belief a sine qua non for being a "real American" began.

Oh, and while we're quoting from US law, documents, and history, Ms. Quinn, perhaps I should remind you of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, wherein it states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The deeper problem here is that Quinn and others like her seem unwilling to acknowledge that the face of America is changing.  Atheists and agnostics are making up an increasingly large slice of the American citizenry.  A poll in 2004 found that 9% of respondents claimed "no religion;" a similar poll in 2008 saw the same demographic jump to 15%.  You may not like it, but atheists and agnostics are increasing in strength, numbers, and willingness to speak up against the kind of bigoted nonsense Quinn and others have claimed.

My disavowal of a deity has nothing whatsoever to do with my devotion to my country, its people, or its laws.   And it would be nice if some of the religious people in the United States would recognize that fact, and remind the officials they elected that the bully pulpit of American politics should never be used to ramrod religious beliefs (or disbelief, for that matter) down the throats of the American public.  It would be damn near a miracle if some of you would tell people like Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) to shut up and sit down.  Broun, you may have heard, is the politician who recently told a group of his constituents, "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.  And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior...  What I’ve come to learn is that (the bible) is the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it.  It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society.  And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that."  [Source]

You know what?  I'd do that for you, religious people of America.  If one of my fellow atheists started campaigning to have religion outlawed, to have freedom of belief suspended, to have churches closed, I would stand up on your behalf.  If one of us said, "You can't be a true American unless you're an atheist," I would shout him down.  A politician who stated that 'atheism teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society' would be, in my opinion, unfit for office.  No one has the right to tell another person how to settle a matter of conscience, and that includes what higher power, if any, to believe in.

I'm issuing a challenge to you.  We have enough divisive hate-speech in this country right now.  Partisan politics has become the flavor-of-the-month, and the flames are being fanned by media.  It's time for this to end.  Religion has no place in government, just as government has no place in religion.  Stand up for the commonalities that unite us all -- love of country, support of the rule of law, dedication to freedom of speech and freedom of belief. 

Be willing to say, "You know what?  The fact that I share your religious beliefs doesn't give you the right to question in my presence the morals, ethics, or patriotism of those who don't."

Be willing to challenge those who have already stopped listening to the likes of me, who have already decided that everything I say "is lies straight from the pit of Hell."

Be willing to stand up for the religious tolerance that the founders of this country wrote into law when they framed the Constitution.

Your silence just makes the fissures that divide this country wider.  And it is time for that silence to end.

sincerely,

Gordon (your fellow American citizen)