Science Friction_ Where the Known Meets the Unknown - Michael Shermer [29]
I had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback from various sources before settling on a new label, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements are best driven not by committee and excessive discussion (freethinkers, humanists, and skeptics have been talking about the labeling problem for decades) but by simply moving forward with the goal of making it happen by momentum, will, and force of personality. Since much of what I do gels with this philosophy, I was initially receptive.
But then the associate director of the Skeptics Society, Matt Cooper, pointed out (based on his experience as a marketing consultant and political activist) that it is not the philosophy of the movement under debate, but the brand name. This is a branding issue, not an ideology issue. And the scientific approach to branding is to conduct focus groups and market tests to see what works. Unfortunately, this was never done for the bright brand, and as a consequence we are now embroiled in a big bright brouhaha. Thus, Matt and I analyzed all of the e-mails we received in response to the second e-Skeptic that solicited feedback, and followed that up with a focus group study Table 1.1 presents the attitudes of the eighty-nine e-Skeptic respondents.
Suggested alternatives to “Brights” numbered 124 and are presented in table 1.2 As a quick perusal will show, compared to most of these “Brights” is a vastly superior label.
Study 3: Focus Group Feedback on “Brights”
On September 7, following the Skeptics Society Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, we assembled a focus group of thirteen first-time lecture attendees. Without knowing the purpose of the focus group, the volunteers were asked to describe the audience they had just been a part of. Their suggestions are presented in table 1.3
TABLE 1.1 Attitudes Toward the Label “Brights” by 89 e-Skeptic Respondents
TABLE 1.2 Suggested Alternatives to “Brights”
TABLE 1.3 Suggested Descriptive Terms for Attendees at the Skeptics Society Caltech Lecture
The focus group was then asked for words that might describe all suchminded people worldwide. They offered iconoclasts, rationalists, nonbelievers, open-minded, determinists, and skeptics.
The focus group was then given a list of names culled from the 124 provided by our e-Skeptic correspondents. They were asked which names they liked most, which they liked least, and which would be acceptable to them. The results are in table 1.4
The most polarizing name was Freethinkers. It was expected to be offensive or embarrassing by 38 percent of the focus group, yet was chosen as a favorite by the remaining 62 percent. Table 1.5 presents the same data in a different breakdown.
The focus group session ended with a general summary of the brights controversy. The room was polled as to how many thought the public would be offended by the label “Brights.” Nine of the thirteen raised their hand. This was followed by a moderated discussion regarding the reactions of the participants to this and other suggested names. Some of their thoughts included:
• Skeptic is perceived as not believing anything, or as cynicism.
• Skeptic is all-encompassing, not just God-related—bright is too limiting.
• They hate us anyway. Why not piss ‘em off with “Brights”?
• Naturalist brings to mind nudists or biologists.
• Atheist is perceived as very negative, agnostic as wishy-washy, undecided.
• Likes “Freethinkers”: we’re not saying we have answers, but neither do you.
TABLE 1.4 Alternative Names Liked Most Least and In Between by Focus Group
• Likes “Freethinkers”: not threatening, aggressive. Skeptic sounds confrontational.
• Freethinker sounds