The dangers of going meta

Damn, damn double-damn. I’ve had a post waiting to be shortened and tidied up, sitting in my drafts since yesterday, and I’ve since come to the conclusion that I’m not going to hit ‘publish’.

It’s not that it’s shite, it just that what seemed like a useful meta-analysis yesterday seems like a distraction today.

Naturally, I blame Russell Blackford for posting this…

Now, a debate like this can go very meta, or meta-meta, very quickly. I doubt that we can get to the bottom of why people find some incidents salient, while other people consider them pretty much unimportant.

(Russell Blackford, 2011)

…and this…

In the current Gnu Wars, a lot of ill-feeling was created by the bogus Tom Johnson story, which was used as evidence of Gnu Atheist types engaging in extreme and foolish kinds of public incivility. As this escalated, it became very ill-advised of Phil Plait to go meta in a vague way that seemed to accuse others of being “dicks” – without giving examples. In some other context, what he said may have been quite sensible. In the historical context that he was actually involved in, going meta in this sort of way – and defending it with no real show of humility and understanding of how others felt - was an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

(Russell Blackford, 2011)

If you want to know a bit more about the Tom Johnson hoax, and how it panned out for Chris Mooney’s blogging on his and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s Discovery blog, The Intersection, you can start here, here and here.

This hardly covers all there is to say on the matter mind you, and I won’t help you any more than this. It’s already meta-meta (or meta-meta-meta-meta) enough, and I’m not, in accordance with Russell’s above wisdom, willing to take the time required to take due care in a blog post on a matter that’s still pretty raw.

A great way to cause a distraction, but not such a great way to get a point across.

(The Tom Johnson story is going to be mentioned in my book, more or less in passing, but that’s some time away and I’ll be more careful with a manuscript than I’m willing to be with a blog post).

The sin-binned post of mine, called ‘Misunderstanding Gnus’, was to compare how some people read phrases like ‘The Colgate Twins’ in much the same way that Mary Midgley reads ‘selfish gene’, or James Delingpole reads ‘hide the decline’ and ‘Nature trick’. In the first instance they jump to find allusions that align with suspicion and accusation, then refuse the possibility of any other interpretation or intent, before finally treating any attempt at clarification by the accused as a white-wash or a deception.

I also coined a rule, arising from the apparently vapid nature of meta-analysis of light-hearted banter like ‘The Colgate Twins’…

As the meta-analysis of any Internet drama loses the capacity to be generalised, the probability that sane participants should find something else to do approaches one.

Where…

…limits to the capacity for generalism may be intrinsic to the drama (indecipherable, alien gossip), or neutered by environmental factors (people are too fixated, comments threads don’t allow for discussion to expand,etc).

The bit about closed comments threads, and the title ‘Misunderstanding Gnus’ title, were lighthearted jabs at Jeremy Stangroom. Careless given the current context perhaps, but then you haven’t seen the rest of the post, fhew!

That’s not my point though.

‘Environmental factors’ are the part of the rule that has seen the post in question sin-binned. Russell’s post seems to suggest that sane people are moving on, which would mean that fixated people will be left behind, perhaps making interpretations of ‘The Colgate Twins’ hard to generalise as per intent.

‘I’m mean more generally…’

‘Yeah, that Mooney sure is pompous!’

Boring flirting with irrelevant.

So I’ve chosen to move on as well, at least until the environment is more conducive to discussing the matter, and only if it’s still worth discussing as an example of what I was really getting at (convenient interpretations and incorrigible accusations). Something else may present itself as a more worthy and accessible example in the intermission.

***

I’ll be writing chapters on the ‘Gnu/New Atheists’ in my manuscript; one a critique of the way ‘The Four Horsemen’ (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens) present atheism to the public, and others critiquing the way the ‘Gnu/New Atheists’ have been received by other atheists, religious apologists, popular media and the like. It’s meta-analysis followed by meta-meta-analysis, which if you follow Blackford’s reasoning, is risky, especially as discussion is so heated.

Blackford rightly condemns the ‘tut-tut’, ‘you shouldn’t say that even if you believe it’s true’ line of meta-analysis/politics. It’s über-didactic enough as it is, and even more weird that it comes from segments of what is traditionally a free-thought culture.

‘Speak truth to power – in a paper bag!’

While I’ll be making prescriptive suggestions and inferences, I really hope not to go down the road of the über-didact in The Book. I’ll aim to be more ‘you can say that if you believe it’s true, but it’s still wrong and stupid’, but perhaps a little less acerbic.

On the other hand, while Dr Blackford suggests that a certain amount of tact is required when undertaking meta-analysis of heated issues, you can go too far in the other direction, even short of self-censorship. While it should be obvious that I take self-censorship to be a non-option, being too careful about hurt feelings can still cause problems short of this.

I used to envy the way Daniel Dennett could approach a contentious, inflammatory matter while maintaining the utmost civility. I guess I still do, because there are still moments when he maintains breathtaking composure given the circumstances. But sometimes I think he takes it a little far.

I don’t think that Breaking The Spell is condescending. Jeremy Stangroom’s suggestion that this is the case has the appearance of advertising himself as a surrogate for all the slings and arrows suffered by poor oppressed religious majorities. I guess that’s how he’ll be marketing his next book.

But…

I did start out reading Breaking The Spell thinking, ‘hey, he’s really easy-going here’, then ‘praise and gentle concern duty noted’, then ‘oh get on with it!’

I don’t think it’s condescension so much as a kind of twee. Syrupy, slow-moving, mildly Asperger-flavoured twee.

I can understand why certain atheists and theists may not warm to this kind of treatment, and it’s not a trivial consideration – I do think it detracts from the book. But it’s a bit much to go from this to treating Dennett as if he thinks he’s everyone’s Daddy (even if he does look like Father Christmas).

All the same, I want to avoid adopting the same approach myself.

The challenge is then to engage in meta-analysis of a heated debate, while being careful not to be an über-didact, while not patting the reader on the head and saying ‘there, there little sissy bum-boo, here’s some candy to cheer you up’. And to manage this while being informative, all the while with enough wit and flair to make The Book readable.

It all looks a little intimidating now. Thanks Dr Blackford!

~ Bruce

(Picture Source: George Cruikshank, 1906, My Uncle Toby on his Hobby-horse).