Some time ago I promised KK a post on tribalism, and he has never forgiven me for not writing it.
I think the reason I never wrote it was because the word, or the charge, turns out to be so vague as to be meaningless. Tribalism is a charge you fling at people when you have no real arguments left and nothing of substance to say: "you're being tribal"; "no I'm not!"; "aha! see, you deny it, you must be tribal". And so on. What is it, anyway? I'd say it is when you defend views and ideas and data from "your" group even when you know it to be wrong, because you don't want your group to lose face, or you subscribe to some higher ideal. It is a very political thing: all political parties are tribal, at least ones that succeed. However Curry has a different defn:
Groupthink is a form of intellectual laziness, whereby we do not continually challenge the science in a fundamental way. Tribalism is more detrimental to the science than group think, when people who have different opinions and viewpoints are excluded.
Well, this is my blog, I'm using my defn, so there. My defn sort-of includes Curry's, because real outsiders are exclused, but by my defn some insiders with different opinions are still members of the "tribe"; they just don't speak out about those opinions. Having written this, I have other stuff to finish this evening, and this isn't the post I intended to write, but never mind, this is what you get.
How about some examples of tribalism? Well yes, most obviously, the s(k)eptic movement. They defend one another, they never accept that members of their tribe have ever erred, and so on. Classic tribalism. Look at the s(k)eptic response to the Wegman report. It is riddled with errors. See for example a recent post of mine. What "auditor" worth their salt wouldn't jump on such a figure and loudly proclaim it's flaws. Ah yes, indeed. Or consider the UAH satellite series - once the septics favourite (oh I forgot the k, but you saw it coming, didn't you?) when it showed cooling, and still produced by JC and RS, two on the "skeptical" side. So it gets treated very gently - no inquiries into its multiple revisions. Or, consider people's response to the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]]. There was great excitement, there were cries of "fraud!", "skullduggery!". This was going to be the final scandal that yet again nailed GW into its coffin. And then... oh dear, 3 inquiries in a row and nothing exciting to show for it (this is a nice link saying roughly that; also a nice follow up about siege). One possible response - the non-tribal one - would be to apologise for the ho-ha and the false allegations. But of course none of the septics have done that. Having nailed their colours to the mast, there is no way back now.
Anyway, what about direct response to some of Curry's points? I think that Curry is, once again, saying things that don't stand up (remember all that fuss on KK's blog a bit back? She has a history of not doing her homework). They "feel" right to her, but are actually substanceless. What about
I arguably entered into this inner circle in 2005-2007, so i've been there and been seduced by the whole thing: a sense of doing something important, being very concerned about spurious "attacks" from the politically motivated,
What in particular is spurious "attacks" supposed to mean? That the "inner circle" was exposed only to spurious things that weren't attacks but were only "attacks"? Come, this is nonsense. There were plenty of genuine non-spurious attacks during that period, that were only "spurious" in the sense of being scientifically invalid.
And
The difficulty in arranging debates between key climate researchers and skeptics, moderation at RC, disinvitation of Steve McIntyre from the recent dendro conference, playing games with journal peer review process as evident from the CRU emails, I would characterize this as tribalism, not groupthink. Part of the tribalism seems motivated by an apparent political "siege", whether or not this is justified is another story, but tribalism it remains.
So, Curry sees tribalism only on one side (hey, just like me, only its a different side). Is this because the tribalism on the septic side is so obvious that it isn't worth mentioning - or is it because she doesn't believe it is significant enough to be worth mentioning? Who knows, she doesn't bother say.
Moderation at RC seems to be the "skeptics" favourite playing card. I don't, any more. But I did. And I moderate comments here. If you don't, you get wackos, and your comments fill up with worthless stuff. And RC is deliberately targetted by the septics. McI at dendro... dunno. Would need to see details [Update: MB points me at http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/the-one-chopped-down-to-size/#more-347. Presumably this is what Curry means; unimpressive; capture. See also MB's other points]. CRU emails: see above. Curry's comment is evidence of her tribalism and groupthink. difficulty in arranging debates between key climate researchers and skeptics - not sure what is meant there. There is a vast disparity in number between scientists who accept the consensus, and respectable scientists who dispute it. So "peer" debates would be tricky - Lindzen would have to show up a lot. And why are non-peer debates a good idea? If you want someone to debate, say, Singer, you don't need a scientist.
One example of "tribalism" that does spring to mind is the climate sensitivity / uniform prior stuff that JA keeps harping on about. Maybe that doesn't make a good sound-bite. Notice that none of the septics noticed it.
motivated by an apparent political "siege", whether or not this is justified is another story is pathetic weaselling. If you're not prepared to admit that there has been a sustained political attack on climate research, you haven't been paying attention or you're not prepared to be honest. This is, again, tribalism by Curry (by my defn): being unprepared to admit to inconvenient facts (you don't have to *deny* the facts, notice - there is always a way back, later, to say "ah but I didn't say it wasn't so" - all you need to do for a while is to refuse to admit them).
And
I became uneasy by the portrayal of too much confidence in the IPCC findings, and wanted to disassociate myself from alarmism, which i define as undue focus on the plausible worst case scenarios
The first part of this I think has some substance, though not if you're talking about the IPCC reports themselves (just what Curry is talking about we don't know of course, she is vague; thought earlier she meant IPCC WGI). As to the "alarmism" bit - I don't know what she means. This is mood-music stuff: she knows the kind of concepts she has in mind, and somehow assumes that we're so in tune with her we'll skip over the lack of evidence. You could call that... tribalism, perhaps?
[Update: there is a nice comment from Curry here on data archiving, in which she stands up to the zealots, so credit to her for that. I don't really buy the argument that policy-relevance means standards have changed stuff, though. The usual suspects still fail to understand her though.]
- Log in to post comments
Well, that was a little ranty but I still liked it. :) Actually kk seems to bring out the ranty in lots of people.
The 2005-7 stuff can only have been a reference to Barton/Wegman. As you say, 'spurious "attack"' is an odd phrase to use.
More later, while stoats yet sleep.
Curry's comment is evidence of her tribalism and groupthink. difficulty in arranging debates between key climate researchers and skeptics - not sure what is meant there.
Are the debates really debates of substance, or of style. The only think Monckton didn't do at his win at Oxford was wear clown shoes.
Creationists regularly win debates, using every trick in the debating book, without having to resort to actual science. If there were to be debate on the scientific merits of AGW, 99% of the population, including myself, would not understand most of it.
More importantly, the skeptics deniers wouldn't understand most of it. They don't understand most of it, don't really try to understand most of it, make it pretty well apparent on virtually every possible occasion, and yet they still get let off the hook for their babbling.
snide, Judy seems frustrated that she can't convince other scientists to participate in her little crusade. She's been rather unpersuasive with her own department, Peter Webster's agreement to look over HadCRUT being as far as she's gotten. If she can't gain any ground on her home turf, what hope can she have for the larger field?
She might be able to be more persuasive with the top-tier scientists whose lack of response she seems particularly frustrated about if she would go to the trouble of formulating her views more precisely, but she could have done that a couple of years ago. Perhaps the reason she doesn't is because she knows she has nothing to say that could be persuasive with them. They (broadly speaking) have no such problem, many of them having written at least one book or long essay if not multiple ones thoroughly expressing their views.
Speaking of debates, maybe she should forget the tedious scientist vs. septic debate she keeps trying to promote and instead herself make an offer to debate (in a written format) a first-rater like Hansen, Raypierre or Emanuel on the subject of how alarmed we should be. I'd make popcorn for that one.
The surprise to me is that people should think that scientists aren't tribal.
Scientists are, after all, people, and people are overwhelmingly tribal on a number of different levels: from the immediate family, to the extended family, to small social groups, to larger groups of associates (whether that be fellow company workers, fellow sports' supporters, those of a like-minded sexual or political orientation, or those of the same ethnicity, ...), to national groupings and international groupings.
In each of those steps up the group ladder, the "individual" tribal feelings get modified and/subjugated, at least for the duration of the gathering. A trivial example would be football supporters in terms of club and country gatherings. If little green meen in saucer-shaped interstellar conveyances arrived on our planetary doorstep with the intention of our annihilation or subjugation, then you'd find a pretty large tribal outlook that subsumed lesser tribal instincts (there would still in all likelihood be a small tribe who thought the visitorsâ intentions were not too bad).
And science has always been tribal, in subtle and not so subtle ways: Newton and Hooke; Edison and Tesla; Hoyle, Gold and Bondi vs the "rest".
The thing about tribalism and science is that science inevitably wins out in the end... and new tribal allegiances are forged.
Now groupthink is a different matter. Again, it always exists, but in the cut-and-thrust world of publication and conferences, the mental fog that is groupthink is, or should be, fairly quickly dispersed in the full glare of public examination.
Anyone for G&T?
And another thing or two...
In straddling, or in attempting to straddle, two opposing tribes one inevitably finds oneself (I'd imagine) in a fairly small tribe. And the views of that tribe are not necessarily any good/better/truer (though they may be); and the members of that group or tribe are as susceptible as any other tribe or group is to groupthink.
And, the thing about groupthink is that you only have to belong to a group of one to fall foul of it. Many groups of one do so. And then if hubris is added to that mix...
That wasn't very coherent. The charge of tribalism is just a tactic to take attention away from the science. The science on climate change is rock solid and Curry ought to know this, but instead spends her time undermining it, for what I can only assume are political reasons.
If Curry actually knew of cases where tribalism or any other social factor harmed the science she would not be reticent, as a competent scientist, in stating those cases. Instead she simply parrots McIntyre, so it seems there is (as usual) nothing to see here.
What wasn't very coherent?
Your link from the text "JA keeps harping on about" is broken.
[Oops, thanks: fixed with http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/05/bounds-climate-sensitivity-an… (taht will do; there are several) -W]
Re 8. Sorry, that was a case of me not being very coherent (then again I didn't choose the topic).
I meant that I didn't find the posting very easy to understand. This is partly due to my lack of knowledge of the background issues briefly mentioned, which I think William could have presented with more clarity. While I'm not up to speed on every aspect, I have been following the more important blogs (the proper ones, not wastes of time run by former weather men or self-styled "auditors"), and I recently spent about six months editing climate change articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly a newbie.
[Um, sorry Tony, as I said that wasn't the post I intended to write, it developed into a response to Curry. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered; neither KK nor Curry have stirred their lazy backsides far enough to comment. There is another post on tribalism (the one comprehensible by those not too deeply intwined in this stuff) in me, but I may not have the strength to write it.
6 months? Ha. Noob :-).
Oh, and as for Curry ought to know this, but instead spends her time undermining it, for what I can only assume are political reasons. - personally I disagree with you. I think that Curry is actually acting out of what she thinks as good motives (as opposed to political ones, which I guess I'll define for these purposes as deliberate lying to promote an ulterior purpose). I think that Curry is wrong, and naive, and lately appears to have suffered capture by CA -W]
Curry's definition of tribalism:
"...when people who have different opinions and viewpoints are excluded."
So by Curry's definition
- NASA scientists are "tribal" because they don't often invite "Moon Landing didn't happen" folks to their meetings.
- Biologists are "tribal" because they don't often invite creationists to their conferences.
- Mechanical engineers are "tribal" because non-engineers are not included in some of their meetings.
Curry's also vague (a common trait with her rhetoric) about what "excluded" means. Does it mean that skeptics aren't invited to scientific conferences? That would certainly be false. For example, Don Easterbrook, a skeptic with some of the most inane arguments, was presenting at the AGU conference a year ago.
Does it mean skeptics aren't allowed to participate in the IPCC process? Also false. Christy is a participant. Lindzen was a past participant. McIntyre is a reviewer.
Does it mean that skeptical arguments are often rejected during the peer review process? In that case, their opinions are rejected because they are not scientifically robust. The Soon/Baliunas debacle is one example.
Tribalism is alive and well, to be clear, as a past Heartland Institute conference agenda reveals.
"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."
Curry is also vague about which "differing opinions" are excluded. Is it wrong to exclude someone who claims the Sun revolves around the Earth?
Shewonk covers McIntyre's whine about the dendro conference.
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/the-one-chopped-down-to-size/#m…
Curry's assertion isn't correct. He wasn't "disinvited". His presentation proposal was rejected. There's also no evidence that his abstract was rejected simply because of his "differing opinion". Imagine if all the other individuals who's presentations were rejected whined like this?
Mark, IIRC Easterbrook's presentation was at the GSA meeting. I suspect it's a little tougher to get invited to an AGU session, especially when as in Easterbrook's case the most casual glance shows the content to be pure garbage. But maybe he somehow slithered his way in and I just failed to note it.
Steve,
By "a year ago", I meant the December, 2008 conference.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/don-easterbrook-global-warming-s…
Now I'm sure there were much more scientifically sound papers that could have been presented instead. Perhaps the scientists who were rejected should decry the "tribalism" for putting Easterbrook's paper ahead of theirs because he offered a contrarian view. They'd probably have a stronger case than any claim Curry is making.
"Capture by CA"--ha, that's another way of saying Stockholm syndrome, I suppose, which was thrown around on this blog by your readers the last you wrote about Curry.
Sorry it's taken me this long to stir my lazy backside. I just don't know what to respond to. You can't seem to comprehend the notion that tribalism may not be a good thing to exhibit in such a highly charged arena as climate science finds itself in. Hence, it's a red herring to you. Ironically, your unwillingness to engage on this just reinforces how inflexibly tribal you are.
[Err, which is exactly what I said about your / Curry's tribalism charge: if anyone denies it, you just say "ha! see it must be true". Can't you see the obvious logical flaw in your approach?
Meanwhile: you haven't read what I wrote: I did *not* say that "tribalism may not be a good thing". I said that looking around, the clearest signs of tribalism are on the septic side. You could offer your own opinion on that point, why don't you? You asserted that RC had never responded to Curry. I've demonstrated you are wrong. You could respond there.
There you are: just two, fairly obvious suggestions for responses, for you and JC. I'm sure I can find more if you need them -W]
Re William's response to my comments in 10, I should clarify that I don't think Curry is being deliberately dishonest either.
There is a common political theme, a kind of dogwhistle, running through all the denialist nonsense. It is attractive to those who dislike the notion of large scale political action and, in my opinion, explains why some quite good scientists such as Storch and Curry hold opinions that seem at odds with the scientific mainstream, while not really doing much in the way of reasoning to support those opinions.
In short, I think Curry's judgement is impaired by political preference. I followed the Kloor interview and the subsequent threads but it was quite frustrating seeing her acting as a puppet for McIntyre, and in consequence repeatedly having to back away from the more outlandish claims that she obviously had not adequately researched.
Re #14: Are you even able to respond, Keith? I'm beginning to doubt it.
Re #13: Thanks, Mark. At least they didn't let him re-flog it this last time.
Keith re your 14, if tribalism is taken to mean avoiding engagement with contrarian nonsense, I think tribalism is a good thing to be accused of practising at this time. Doing so would be a waste of time and at best nothing would come of it. As worst, well we have Judith Curry to thank for the exemplar. It is the science, and only the science, that matters. All the rest is just so much wank on blogs.
Jeez, I must be daft. I can't see why you all (including William) don't get why tribalism is an issue for you to grapple with.
William: I'm definitely tribal with my follow journos. Anyone should be able to figure that out with all the times I've posted on Romm's media tantrums. I freely admit that. But I still like to think that I can accept legitimate criticism.
You all on this thread are obviously really, really tribal, not because you reject being tribal, but because you reflexively defend your tribal members, even if it means you have to overlook or deny legitimate criticism of them.
Now, generally speaking, I suspect this is because you don't want to aid the other side.
As for the other side, they are equally tribal, because they don't want to concede points to you all either. Hell, that's obvious, isn't it?
The AGW tribal members that are least hostage to their tribalism are guys like Bart Verheggen and Michael Tobis. Because they're at least willing to have an honest back and forth and are willing to concede points in a debate. And BTW, when they get out of line, like when Michael ocassionally concedes a point to RPJ, the enforcer rabbet pops up immediately in a comment thread to admonish Michael for it. "Never give an inch" is his advice.
Now along comes Judith Curry who is definitely part of your tribe but suddenly is questioning some of the precepts. How utterly scientific of her!! The shock!! To want to step back and look anew at something, based on new information.
Of course, the problem there is you won't concede she's doing this with any good information. And so there we stand.
[Keith, all of that was substance free. Its the same old "you're tribal; how do I know? Simple! Because you deny that you're tribal". It is valueless. I've repeatedly asked you for actual substance and you've repeatedly run away. I've even tried to dig up my own substance from what JC has said; you've run away from commenting on that, too.
Curry is making crit based on new information. Fine. What new information is that? Please tell us -W]
Anyway, as some of you probably know by now, I brought together two members of different clans to talk--you know, just as a little experiment--to see if it's possible for people to talk with each other, instead of always past each other. Seemed to work out, so maybe there's hope yet.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/11/bridging-the-climate-divide/
I've seen much of the criticism coming out of the denialsphere, and the amount of *legitimate* criticism is miniscule.
And, yes, I've extremely familiar with the contents of the "ClimateGate" e-mails..
Questioning is scientific. Accepting dubious claims without doing research is not. As Tony Sidaways says above, she has not adequately researched many of the claims she has made. And she has, at times, looked extremely foolish because of this.
"you won't concede" assumes that she's got good information, an interesting claim given that it's extremely obvious that she's not bothered to investigate much of what she has uncritically accepted as truth.
Keith, your basic problem is that, like too many journalists, you insist that there are two sort-of-equal sides with a middle (exemplified by the Breakthrough Boys) that has the right answer. You've made no case whatsoever for that being true. Remember Okrent's Law, albeit that the NY Times seems to have forgotten it.