THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Saturday 14 July 2018

Why do people believe what they are told by senior academics?




This is a rather interesting article from the BBC web site, addressing the question of why people in general do not choose to stand up to authority.  Why do they do what they are told to do, even when their actions may cause harm and even though they may be morally questionable?  In parallel we have the questions of belief — why do people tend to believe what they are told by authority figures such as politicians, civil service people, policemen or, dare we say it, senior academics?  Of course, the authority figures love it when people defer to them and accept what they say, or do what they are told to do — it butters up their egos and increases their sense of self-esteem.  But most people follow instructions anyway — for very complex reasons.  One of those reasons is sheer laziness — people cannot be bothered, in this complex world, to work things out for themselves, so they defer instead to “experts” or authority figures who can — and willingly do — take on the job of doing the thinking on their behalf.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180709-our-ability-to-stand-up-to-authority-comes-down-to-the-brain

I find this rather interesting because of the response I have come across occasionally at my talks when I apply close scrutiny to the “findings” and assumptions of the quarrymen.  It’s not unusual for people (and, of course, the media) to accept what they are told by MPP and his merry gang because they are senior academics who are asssumed to know exactly what they are talking about and who should, in the nature of things, be deferred to or respected.  In contrast, I can safely be dismissed as a
nutter because I am NOT a senior academic.  Once or twice, I have even had members of an audience expressing outrage:  “It’s disgraceful that you should question the motives and the quality of research of these senior archaeologists!  After all, archaeology is their field, and they are trained to know exactly what they are looking at.  And they would never knowingly put into print anything that might be questionable!”  In this way I am made to feel like a party pooper, spoiling all the fun — and as the BBC article points out, it is easy to impose a sense of guilt on anybody who does NOT defer to authority and who, because of his or her independent or defiant attitude, makes life difficult for those who would set the agenda and tell the rest of us what to think and how to behave.

Interesting stuff.  So should I go with the crowd, and accept everything I see in print?  I think not, even if it means upsetting those who tend to defer to authority.  I was taught to think for myself, to apply scientific method, to apply scrutiny (and a degree of healthy scepticism) to the research work of others, and to follow academic convention in presenting and analysing evidence.

In this era of false news and alternative truths, these old standards (that were drummed into me in
Oxford and which I tried to drum into my own students in Durham) are more important than ever.  So, ladies and gentlemen, feel free to stand in front of the tanks, go nose to nose with those who are bigger and stronger than you are, and think for yourself if you wish to maintain any sort of dignity.

A very closely related issue is that of the “naked emperor syndrome” — where, according to the old story, everybody bowed and scraped, and pretended that the Emperor was fully clothed, until somebody brave enough or innocent enough said: “Look, the Emperor has no clothes!”    We are not talking about the personalities of particular individuals here, but about human nature......

16 comments:

sciencebod said...

Theoretically speaking, the internet - with its personal blogs- should have broken the hold of status-quo-defending/promoting grant-hungry academe. But it hasn't.

Why not?

I was afraid I would ask that!

Methinks there's one jinormous stitch-up going on - and it's aided, one suspects, by so-called commission-hungry click-bait internet search engines, aided by those Machiavellian SEOs (search-engine optimisers) and much else besides.

Paranoia? Maybe.I try to keep an open mind (but it's been rapidly closing these last few months, indeed years). Think mind-controlling creepy Californian control-freakery...

MD said...

Luckily the Celtic peoples, particularly the Irish, generally have a healthy disregard for authority.

chris johnson said...

What I see currently is a huge disrespect for any kind of expert opinion. Michael Gove reflected this well during the Brexit discussions.

When populism gets out of control we need look no further than Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia for where this might lead.

The lack of academic rigour evident in the official narratives around stonehenge is indicative of a failing culture and is much more dangerous than those who go along with it are aware.

Science needs to be respected but that respect needs to be earned, every day.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Spot on, Chris. Completely agree.

Alex Gee said...

MD: someone ought to tell the pope about their healthy disregard for authority! He's in for a shock!

TonyH said...

Perhaps these two people are in their respective Posts to encourage us to be less deferential towards "received wisdom" from Senior Academics coming down from the mountain tops?:-


1] Professor Michael Wood, Professor (2013) of Public History at the University of Manchester

AND.....

2] Professor Alice Roberts, Professor (2012) of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham


Both are well known to us from their appearances in TV programmes.

TonyH said...

I don't take kindly to being expected to accept what my 'elders' and/or 'betters' and/or 'specialists' proclaim to be "indisputable". In my life I have been in several situations where the term "whistle - blower" could be used to describe me by those whose proclamations I have disagreed with!

PeteG said...

"If it wasn't for my Lucky Astological Mood Watch I wouldn't Believe in Anything!" - Steve Martin

Unknown said...

There is a saying, from who I don't know but it goes: 'Science advances one funeral at a time'.

There is some truth in that. The key to overturning widely held beliefs is not just evidence but evidence so strong that the prevailing beliefs are untenable.

Resistance to change has happened many many times in science. There is nothing new about the current generation hanging on to their beliefs, it's been going on for millennia. Some may try to explain it based on some global conspiracy theory (eg climate change), but I don't believe its anything like that, just normal human inertia to change, it takes time to change and the evidence in favour of change must be overwhelming.

sciencebod said...

How I wish Mike Parker Pearson were here on this thread. There's a question I'd like to put to him, one that I suspect would reveal at least scientific myopia on his part, which amounts to totally unjustified reinforcement of the status quo re the true role of Stonehenge and other stone circles. Unfortunately, the question is nowt to do with how the bluestones got to the site. It's to do with their intended role and that of timber predecessors and later sarsens on installation. I've already been told off once here for allowing my particular focus on Stonehenge to distract from the site's prime interest, so shall say no more. Suffice it to say that while I'm impressed with MPP's book-writing skills, I'm less than impressed with his grasp of scientific essentials. (He could do a lot worse than acquaint himself with the work of Jenny Cataroche and Rebecca Gowland on cremated bones at La Varde, Guernsey, essentially a Stonehenge in miniature - minus lintels).

Colin Berry, aka sciencebod

TonyH said...

I think we should all pop round to Julian Richards' house in the Shaftesbury, Dorset area and ask him why HE and his publisher of the regularly - updated Stonehenge Official Guidebook are so resistant to change. Ignorance, arrogance or a mixture of both? Or are they both affected by G.T.S [i.e. the Gravy Train Syndrome]?

As Herbert says, it takes time to change.........I wonder whether there are now any Dorset/ Wiltshire FOLK SONGS about The Boys Who Moved Them Bluestones.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Interesting comments, folks. re the deep conservatism of academia, and the resistance to change — I agree that that situation has existed ever since the dawn of academia. Hypotheses have all to easily, down through the centuries, become ruling hypotheses, and there is always an ‘ESTABLISHMENT” which associates itself with particular core beliefs and which will try to protect them from dissidents and mavericks. Time after time, through the history of science, we see this......

But what is, I think, new in all of this is the current obsession with “impact” rather than sound science. I saw the beginnings of it when I was teaching and researching at Durham University. Since 1976 the status or standing of individual academics and even departments and universities is measured not by the quality of research but by the quantity. At one stage, I recall academics bemoaning the fact that their reputations were measured, quite literally, by the WEIGHT of their academic papers. So nowadays impact rules — measured by column inches in the newspapers and the amount of time reporting a paper in the BBC and other broadcast media. University press departments exist to feed to the media as many stories per day, about the research findings of their staff, as they can manufacture. And as we all know, the content of these press releases is often garbled nonsense.

Most academics are fastidious researchers who seek to maintain high standards, and life may be difficult for them if they produce less than five new research papers every year — but sadly there are others who go with the flow, and who will say more or less anything that will guarantee a few more column inches.

TonyH said...

What is missing from so much of archaeological interpretation is willingness to engage in proper CIVILISED DEBATE, replacing hyperbole and over - selling.

Perhaps the Archaeological world could do with soon - to - retire David Dimbleby offering his services as a Chairman in such debates? He could be a modern Magnus Magnusson.

TonyH said...

....or, dare I say it, Sir Tony Robinson?? He was always the sceptical one on Time Team.....

Garry W. Denke, Sr. said...

"Why do people believe what they are told by senior academics?"

They don't. Face it, how many people believe you?

BRIAN JOHN said...

No idea how many people believe me, Garry. A lot of people look at the blog, and I’ll take that as a guide.....