A skepchick is that rare creature, the skeptic who is both female and desirable. She is generally quite popular, usually due to her appealingly large intellect, her quick wit, or just her ability to stand everyday interaction with skeptical men.
“Skepchick” is updated in the Urban Dictionary. Interesting but a bit dicey in spots, IMHO. (Click Here to see it)
Hat Tip Elyse
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
It does make me feel a bit sorry for the guy who wrote it. Skepchicks are plentiful in my world, and I don’t know any women who identify as skeptics who aren’t amazing.
Maybe I just know a better class of skeptical men.
IMHO too verbose, but in any case: why settle for less?
The whole thing might make more sense if “skeptical men” was changed to “unkspetical men”
Shouldn’t that be “skepdudes,” or even better, “skepdicks”?
Why is it only women that are categorized like this? If a male is an intelligent skeptic, he is treated as an intelligently skeptical individual person. If a woman is an intelligent skeptic, she gets pigeon-holed into a fetish category. My advice to skepdicks out there: treat individuals as such, and appreciate intelligence for its own merit.
My experience is that the more “desirable” and “popular” a “female” is, the more skeptical she is; I don’t know where they get this “rare” thing. The big issue is, skeptical about what?
Seriously, most people who identify themselves as skeptics focus on the most trivial sorts of deceptions — religion, homeopathy — and swallow whole the biggest and most egregious, viciously defending them against all reason. The favorite among the latter are of their own intellectual superiority, honesty, and courage. I don’t identify myself as a skeptic because (with a few honorable exceptions) I don’t care for the neighborhood; mark me down as skeptical about skeptics.
Nathan, that is an interesting perspective, and one that I have a great deal of empathy for. In fact, I’ve been writing skeptical skepticism more often lately (and am about to put out something fairly major … in that it is big, not necessarily good 🙂 … shortly.
Having said that, the particular Skepchicks that I happen to know are fairly skeptical skeptics and I have a lot of respect for them.
Nathan, maybe I’m having trouble parsing your comment due to lack of sleep but what do you consider to be the most eggregious deceptions that self-identified skeptics fall prey to? Were honesty and courage the actual examples or something else? That is, do you consider a person’s idea that they are honest to be an eggregious deception whilst religion is a trivial one or am I misreading?
Michael: Thank you, I should have said “superior intellect, honesty and courage”. Self-identified skeptics, like many others, assume they have these, often against all evidence. (Some skeptics do have, but they seem no more evident among skeptics than among the population at large.) This wouldn’t matter, except when skeptics set themselves up to judge others. It’s easy to see what’s wrong with homeopathy, but it seems, by the evidence, to be very hard indeed to see what’s wrong with one’s own perceptions or behavior. It should be clear that the value of a skeptic’s judgment about these simpler topics depends critically on having their own house in order.
I see — if your point would be that seeing yourself as a skeptic may well lead in increased arrogance in other areas of life then I would agree. However I don’t think it’s obvious whether this is outweighed by the dubious items a skeptic sees through — or that it makes them trivial.
I guess it’s a pretty subjective judgement that would depend on your individual experience with skeptics. In theory a person should be able to apply their skeptical tools to themselves but in reality it genuinely is much harder than applying them to something external.
Greg: Your willingness to ignore the faults of your skepchick friends sometimes seems indistinguishable from sexism of the “low expectations” sort.
Michael: My point is, rather, that without sound judgment, a professed skeptic remains mired in any number of unexamined belief systems, congratulating herself for rejecting one or two while vociferously defending many others of likely even less merit. Skepticism and gullibility are two sides of the same coin; to reflexively reject idea A is to swallow not-A whole, and vice versa.
We can see this in attitudes about vaccination. It’s not hard to demonstrate that mass vaccination has been a net benefit (at least to us, and in the short term), but to recognize this, it is not necessary to believe that vaccination never harms anybody, or that the present arrangements cannot be improved. Nonetheless anyone suggesting otherwise can expect to be excoriated by supposed skeptics. A true skeptic is as suspicious of profitable and sloppy institutional arrangements as of their critics, howsoever ill-educated some of the latter may be, or how many infections are prevented.
Nathan, are you serious still on about this concern trolling?
As for anti-vaccination skeptics, from where I stand, you’re tilting at strawmen. Someone saying vaccines should be improved raises flags among the skeptics I know, but the response is generally to ask, “What do you think needs to be done?” The response to that question is what is then evaluated.
Nathan, that dig was totally out of the blue, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide examples or more explanation.
I happen to totally agree with you about vaccination, as well as pharma in general. While the usually accepted methods of medical research essentially work, and the usually accepted ‘methods’ of alternative medicine folk knowledge acquisition an distribution don’t produce much medical benefit, this dichotomy does not mean that modern medicine does not miss important observations and screw up.
As I said before, I’m skeptical of skepticism. I’ve written about this a bit, and I’m tending to do more in the near future. At the Sketpchicon meetings, I saw a lot of non-skeptical knee jerk discourse (mainly about the education system). When I pointed these uncritical verbal fetishes (mainly coming from the audience but also at least one panel member) to the actual Skepchicks at lunch, we had a normal conversation … there was no anti-anti-skepticism.
But it is true that girls are smarter.
Greg: It wasn’t a dig, just an observation. It wasn’t out of the blue, it was in direct response to your remark about “Skepchicks that I happen to know”, and I thought it directly on the topic of the posting. Your remark “girls are smarter” makes a superb example.
We don’t patronize people we respect.
My remarks about vaccination were meant as an example to enlarge on my explanation to Michael (whose penetrating questions, to me and to others, I deeply appreciate). I’m not accusing anybody here of unfairly excoriating vaccination critics.
Nathan, why would Greg saying girls are smarter be patronage? He’s been consistent on that topic. Also, where do you find evidence that he has lower expectations for women? Based on his comments about smarts, exactly the opposite would appear to be true.
Nathan, I’ve been teaching classes from intro to graduate level for decades, assigning the same assignments and tests to boys and girls. I’m telling you the girls are smarter!
I said “Skepchicks that I happen to know are fairly skeptical skeptics and I have a lot of respect for them. ”
That is a true statement, both about Rebecca Watson, Car2D2, and the other official Skepchics (TM) as well as Stephanie Zvan, my wife, Amanda, and the other chicks who are not part of the Skepchick group officially, and about my level of respect.
You said: “Greg: Your willingness to ignore the faults of your skepchick friends sometimes seems indistinguishable from sexism of the “low expectations” sort.”
WTF? Produce a single ort of evidence to back this up!
And to get quite serious for a moment, I’d love to hear (seriously, no snark intended at all) your examples of non-skeptical skepticism. Seriously.
Nonetheless anyone suggesting otherwise can expect to be excoriated by supposed skeptics.
I don’t have much experience in direct interaction with self-identified skeptics but based on everything I’ve read and heard from them I’d be very surprised if this was the case — most appear to have a balanced view of (say) vaccination — their view may seem unbalanced because a disproportionate % of their time is spent discussing anti-vaccinationism, as opposed to nuances of how to improve vaccination. Which I don’t think is a fault of the skeptic movement per se since there’s no reason to expect the same people to spend the same time dealing with both sides of the issue.
Are there any other examples that show what else you mean by uncritical skepticism?
There are of course very many issues on which many skeptics are simply wrong but I think this is as expected of a population of humans.
Greg, do you really want me explaining systematic bias to you? Suffice to say, when you find yourself alone in finding a consistent difference in intelligence between male and female humans, that’s prima facie evidence for bias. It’s up to you to figure out how to correct for it. I’m just telling you how it smells from out here.
For plenty of examples of embarrassing skepticks, look at Phil Plait’s or Orac’s blog.
SZ: You’ll get it if you keep at it. Thinking things through is a good habit to develop, out here in the asteroid belt.
Nathan, unfounded accusations are a poor substitute for a convincing presentation, but I suppose sometimes a substitute is all you have.
Nathan: For plenty of examples of embarrassing skepticks, look at Phil Plait’s or Orac’s blog. Now we are getting somewhere. But not specific ennough!!!
But it really is true that girls are smarter than boys. (On average, of course).
Stephanie: Nathan, unfounded accusations are a poor substitute for a convincing presentation, but I suppose sometimes a substitute is all you have.
That was very smart.
That was very smart
Patronizing again, Greg? Really.
If you need more specificity, just google up “anti-vaxx”. Practically anyone using the word will make you cringe.
Nathan, maybe if you were a girl, I would not have to ask again!?!!!?? Give me some actual examples. I’m not challenging you becausae I don’t think they are there. I strongly suspect they are there. I’m just interested in what they are.
I’d say that it’s definitely evidence of something, but until that evidence is analyzed, bias is not the only option.
Why would that be patronizing, Nathan? What is it about you that you can’t accept Greg’s sincerity in enjoying the fact that I skewer hypocrisy without trying very hard?
SZ: You’re serving as an excellent example, but it’s really not necessary.
Dan J: Bias is the first option. Only after bias is ruled out is it worth digging for something else. That won’t be needed here.
Greg: I’m sorry, I’m not doing the googling for you because I’m not especially interested in that right now. I was interested a couple of years ago, but I have lost patience with reading skeptickalists. I pester you about your patronizing attitude toward woman because it’s the most puzzling thing about your public persona. If you don’t care to explore it, I’ll drop the subject. There’s really nothing else for me to say on it, anyway; only you can root out your own bias.
Nathan, example of what? So far, you haven’t pointed to anything except the fact that I called a boy on his bullshit. If this is your idea of “low behavior,” you’ve got your own bias issues to examine. After all, “[o]nly after bias is ruled out is it worth digging for something else. That won’t be needed here.”
Nor, for that matter, are your uncited, unexamined impressions of skeptics from a couple of years ago convincing in making the case that there’s a wide-spread problem in the movement you abandoned.
SZ: You would embarrass yourself less if you would stop to think things through before you post. (A habit of thinking things through is a good idea for other reasons too. I do not think it beyond your capacity.) I did not mention “low behavior”. I could not abandon a movement because I never joined one. I’m not interested in “making the case” for a “wide-spread problem” in such a movement. I never encountered a movement, only individuals like yourself.
I have not been a boy for many decades. Sexist, much?
Well, gosh darn it, Nathan. You’ve caught my sexist self out and exposed the guys around me as the masochists they are.
Or perhaps I’m telling you to grow up and start taking responsibility for backing up your insults with facts. Otherwise, you demonstrate yourself to be merely a sneering little whiner who claims superiority with nothing behind it. Well, I mean you’ve been demonstrating that for a while, but for some reason, I keep feeling compelled to give you a chance to redeem yourself. Maybe that’s the evidence you’re lacking that I’m not as smart as I think I am?
You would embarrass yourself less if you would stop to think things through before you post. (A habit of thinking things through is a good idea for other reasons too. I do not think it beyond your capacity.)
I must say that this is the funniest thing I’ve read in days. Weeks. Months! Here I am struggling day to day to keep up with Stephanie’s commentary (and other things) and I’ve got Multiple PhD’s from Harvard!!!11!!
If that was Stephanie not thinking, I’m kind of afraid of what it would be like with her thinking.
I have not been a boy for many decades. Sexist, much?
Nathan, what’s it like getting thrown back in time like that?
Please, Stephanie, Please chastise me and make me feel like less of a man. Pretty please?
Oh, and Nathan, they’re called “skeptics.”
Greg: Still at it, I see. It gets old.
SZ: So, it’s back to the name-calling. I didn’t ask for your chances and have no desire for your redemption.
Wow, Stephanie, you have the most ardent followers 😉 I love hanging out here, you find a whole different class of trolls.
what the…
wow.
Sigh.
I know, CyberLizard. Do you think I’m actively encouraging the obsessiveness, or am I just that irresistible?
What gets old, Nathan? I’m not following you.
If I might say so, you’re just that irresistible, Stephanie. Err, as a target, I mean. How could a troll NOT attack a smart, confident girl on the interwebs? I mean, that’s practically in their job description!
Greg: Patronizing gets old. It’s your blog, though, so I’m not complaining (hey, go wild!), just noting.
This post should be retitled “Troll Alley” or something.
I’ve been reading through this and trying to figure out who is patronizing what, and as far as I can tell it is Dr. Laden making the claim, based on test scores in his classes, that girls outdo boys on grades. Is that really what we are arguing about here? I’m sure there are subjects where this is true and he apparently teaches one of these.
Besides, everyone knows that chicks are smarter than …