Why Smart Women Podcast
Welcome to the Why Smart Women Podcast, hosted by Annie McCubbin. We explore why women sometimes make the wrong choices and offer insightful guidance for better, informed decisions. Through engaging discussions, interviews, and real-life stories, we empower women to harness their intelligence, question their instincts, and navigate life's complexities with confidence. Join us each week to uncover the secrets of smarter decision-making and celebrate the brilliance of women everywhere.
Why Smart Women Podcast
Why smart women get trolled
Join us for part one of an enlightening conversation with Melanie Trecek-King, Associate Professor of Biology at Massasoit Community College. Melanie makes the mistake of being pretty, highly educated and in possession of her own website, ‘Thinking is Power’ which makes her a target for online trolls.
In this age of internet fuelled disinformation and wellness nonsense how do we differentiate between pseudoscience and well-supported scientific facts. Well Associate Professor Melanie is here to tell us.
Let’s mark ourselves safe from conspiratorial thinking and snake oil salesmen selling us pointless vitamins and supplements. Equip yourselves with the knowledge to stay safe and make informed decisions. Stay sharp, stay savvy, and keep your critical thinking hat shiny.
Check out Thinking Is Power with Melanie Trecek-King YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJpiqaKfX3bEPkN5MD8SLOQ
You are listening to the why Smart Women podcast, the podcast that helps smart women work out why we repeatedly make the wrong decisions and how to make better ones. From relationships, career choices, finances, to faux fur jackets and kale smoothies. Every moment of every day, we're making decisions. Let's make them good ones. I'm your host, annie McCubbin, and, as a woman of a certain age, I've made my own share of really bad decisions. Not my husband, I don't mean him, though I did go through some shockers to find him, and I wish this podcast had been around to save me from myself. This podcast will give you insights into the working of your own brain, which will blow your mind.
Speaker 1:I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which I'm recording and you are listening on this day. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land, so my guest today is Melanie Tracett-King, who is an Associate Professor of Biology at the Massasoit Community College, where she teaches a general education science course designed to equip students with empowering critical thinking, information, literacy and science literary skills. She's also very, very plugged in to the science skeptical community and does a lot of keynote speaking all over the world, and I'm thrilled that she's agreed to join me today. Good morning Melanie Tracett King. How are you this morning? From very, very cold Tasmania.
Speaker 2:I'm doing awesome. It's great to see you and it's not that cold.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's because you're from the Midwest of America. Right, I am. It actually is that cold because I heard that in Tasmania two days ago, up in Cradle Mountain, that all the water froze because it was minus 13.5.
Speaker 2:Okay, so the top of the mountain is kind of close to the cold. I'm used to, but I'm in Hobart. I didn't even have a coat with.
Speaker 1:Oh my God, you're so tough, just for everybody listening today. Two things I am sick, but we'll get back to that in a minute because I're so tough, just for everybody listening today. Two things I am sick, but we'll get back to that in a minute because I'm so awesome I'm still going to do the podcast. And secondly, melanie Trace at King and I met presenting at a Skeptics Conference last year in Melbourne and it was an awesome experience meeting each other because we were both just amazing. So, melanie, can you just tell us how you washed up at a skeptics conference? What is your background, please?
Speaker 2:Oh, okay, so that's a long story. I'm going to try to keep it short. Okay, my background is biology, specifically plant ecology, and I in the United States I teach at a college and I specialize in teaching non-science, general education science. So I created a course to four are non-science majors that teaches skills, critical thinking, information, literacy and science literacy. In the process I got I published an article about it in the Skeptical Inquirer, which is the major skeptic magazine in the United States, and that got me into the skeptic community in the States and they have been so wonderful. I spoke at SCICON, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiries Conference, which is the biggest conference in the state.
Speaker 1:I know it, it's wonderful. I'd love to go. I would love to go. Oh my God.
Speaker 2:Go, go go. It is the most amazing networking opportunity and the people there are so wonderful and you learn so much and meet so many people. Well, anyway, the rest is history. So I was in Australia, new, zealand, speaking at the conferences there, and that's where I met you and David, and your presentation was so amazing, the way that you were able to communicate using your theatre backgrounds.
Speaker 1:Thank you, thank you, yeah, so the whole sceptical thing. Of course, I'm deeply, profoundly interested in why we have gone so appallingly towards believing in misinformation and disinformation which is more deliberate, and what we can do about it. So the sceptical community in Australia is also it's my happy place. I love going there because you know, everybody believes in COVID-19, just for starters, which is awesome. So, yeah, I get it, the whole sceptical thing. And, of course, melanie has a brilliant. What do you call it? It's your YouTube channel, isn't it? Thinking is Power. What is it? Explain it to me.
Speaker 2:So after I created the course, I wanted my students to be able to have content to read and there was not a book that I wanted them to buy. So I just thought I'd start writing for a website and I called it. Thinking is power. We've all heard knowledge is power. Yeah, Now, that's great, but there's too much to know and we care best to basically all of the world's information in our pockets, but also misinformation. Question is, when we need reliable information, can we find it and use it to make better decisions? So I think thinking is power.
Speaker 2:So I have a website and then I have a YouTube channel and social media platforms. I'm on Facebook and Instagram and TikTok and so on. All of those are at Thinking Powers. I would greatly appreciate the follow, but actually I created it for my students primarily. But then I realized that people were actually interested in this content and that is wonderful to hear. But the premise of what I try to do is it doesn't have to be. I'm not as theatrical as you, I'm not as creative as you, but I do use lots of jokes and colorful graphics and I'm a big fan of Comic Sans. I just think that everybody can have fun while they're learning.
Speaker 1:I would disagree that you're not as creative, because I found your presentation extremely creative and I find your approach creative. I find you accessible and highly relatable. And these things, as we know, most of the books sort of behavioral science books, critical thinking books are written by men, correct, yeah, and they're dry. They're dry. It's why I wrote my books in the first place, because I thought we have got to try and inject some humor into this space, because nobody is listening. It astounded me the lack of critical thinking in the community and I do training with very, very senior people in the business world and still the critical thinking understanding is really, really low. So I think you and I have got a big job to do and please, everybody follow. Thinking is Power. At the end of the podcast I'll put the link to it. It is really good. Every week I follow Melanie and every week I learn something new. So please, please, please, follow it. So back to me, because that's the most important thing.
Speaker 1:This is my podcast, so I'll just tell you what's happening with me at the moment. I've got influenza A, I'm an asthmatic, so I've had a major asthma flare-up and I've got a secondary bacterial infection. So I'm at my GP who I'll talk about in a minute trying to manage these symptoms because, as you know, I'm not 22 anymore and having influenza when you're in asthmatic is not good. So I would just like to talk to you about the number of things that have been said to me about the condition that I have and what I should be doing about it, from people who have no medical background and are very much in the woo-woo space and are literally driving me insane. So number one is that I shouldn't be taking puffers and steroids, because that's just big pharma trying to sell their product. What I should be doing is looking at my diet and doing Buteyko breathing, which I'm sure it's fine. It's closed mouth breathing but there's absolutely zip evidence that it actually does anything in reality for asthma.
Speaker 1:I've had that come at me. I've had people telling me that there's no such thing and there's no such thing as COVID-19 and that all vaccines are toxic and that the body this is my favorite, this is my all time absolute favorite that if I can just plug in to my body's natural healing, I'll be fine, as if people you know 150 years ago, before we had you know, science and medicine, could just plug into their natural healing when they're in the middle of a plague and they'd be fine, like it's so nuts. But then people pile on and go yeah, why don't you just your body wants to heal, why aren't you assisting? It's driving me nuts and I don't, and then I almost don't know what to. I'm so frustrated by it that I end up sort of just getting furious and then going nowhere, which is really pointless too oh, my goodness, there was a lot there.
Speaker 2:You've really got with those comments online. I'm just curious, there is a lot there.
Speaker 1:I know, for people that are listening, the most important thing is that we counter the argument from the wellness community. That's the most important thing I think that we can do, because the wellness community has simplistic, non-scientific, non-scientific, non-evidence-based ideas, which are pushed out with a lot of pretty pictures of people meditating and sitting next to lakes and it sounds like if you follow their advice, then wellness and lack of illness can be yours. So I just want to counter that wellness profiling, because that's the thing that I think at the moment is the most dangerous. So now I'm going to play a little clip from my second book, why Smart Women Buy the Lies, which describes Kat, the central character, talking to someone about COVID-19.
Speaker 3:What happened to Alex's first wife?
Speaker 1:you say she leans on the kitchen bench, pulls her hair into a ponytail and clips it.
Speaker 3:Oh, she caught COVID. It was the first wave. She didn't look all that sick, then suddenly just passed away Terrible. She was 43 years old. No yes, alec was devastated, as were the children. No God, they were incredibly happy. Apparently. She was lovely. It happened early in the pandemic. She was one of the first young ones to die. Oh God, yeah, she was terrified of them all getting it. She used to disinfect the groceries before they were allowed in the house. Fair enough, we didn't know then how it was transmitted. Well, she was an anxious person, quite fearful before the pandemic. She must have been off the Richter once it hit.
Speaker 3:Don't think that helps. How do you mean? Well, I think your state of mind has something to do with it. It's not the whole story. Obviously Something to do with what? Something to do with whether you get sick or die from COVID? Huh, obsessive worrying doesn't help anything. That's all I'm saying. Mr Yee was the most optimistic person I've ever met. It took 11 days to kill him. I just think being negative and fearful doesn't help. We know stress lowers your immune system.
Speaker 1:It's a microbe. You think to yourself How's your emotional state going to affect that?
Speaker 3:Our health is complicated. Mind and body are interconnected. How positive you are, how fit you are, the food you eat, it all affects whether you allow disease into your body, says Charlotte. Allow disease Anyway.
Speaker 1:The front door opens and Will appears he puts his school bag on the dining table.
Speaker 3:Hi, baby boy, says Charlotte. He goes to the fridge and pulls out a Coke. Say hi to Cat Will. He looks at you and raises a hand. Is that the best you can manage, Says Charlotte. He shrugs and leaves the kitchen. Well, that will have to do. I was a shy child, you say. Well, there's shy and there's will. Alec has taken him to every child's psych. They say he has social anxiety, traumatised by losing his mother. Trauma seems to be the new black. My wondrous childhood came to an abrupt halt and I don't have social anxiety disorder. Everybody has some bloody disorder these days, don't they? Well, I get a bit anxious. She makes a dismissive gesture with her hand. Well, you'd never know. So go you.
Speaker 1:You make a quick mental note to never share your anxious thoughts with Charlotte. This sets you on a labyrinthine quest through your friends and acquaintances to examine who you might have shared your anxieties with and who may be now sitting in judgment of you. Okay, hope you enjoyed that little clip. So now let's go back to my conversation with Melanie.
Speaker 2:I often joke that when with my students, I have a captive audience, so for four months they have to stay with me as I break things down and help them understand things. Most science classes start with a scientific method I'm air quoting for those who can't see me and then they proceed into the things that we know from the process of science, and I think this is really misleading. It's also not helping people understand why we need science to begin with.
Speaker 2:If I could just back up for a second pseudoscience and science denial. So let's define those terms. Pseudoscience is a belief in something that is unscientific, either because it's not supported or it's been falsified, or it's not even falsifiable. Pseudoscience versus science denial, which is a denial of well-supported science. They're like two sides of the same coin, in that both of them pretend to be scientific, but pseudoscience is driven by a desire to believe something and science denial is driven by a desire to not believe something.
Speaker 1:Okay. So if I can just put in there that there was someone online that was saying that he had asthma and that his parents had spent thousands of dollars going to doctors to try and fix it, now, this, to start off with, is a lie. It does not cost thousands of dollars to go to a doctor in Australia. It's free. Well, it's currently a little bit, but do you know what I mean? He's probably in his 40s, so that's a lie. And then the doctors ignored it and wouldn't look for root cause, which was diet, and didn't even look at his breathing and just tried to give him drugs. Then he found breathing. He found Botteco breathing, and now he's fine. Then another woman was like well, I did Chinese medicine in London and my asthma is cured, so everybody is cured. And my asthma is cured, so everybody is cured. So there's this very strong anecdotal, unverifiable, but sounds great. Right, like he did diet and breathing, and now he's cured.
Speaker 2:And she's cured. So these anecdotes are powerful, correct, they're really powerful. And the thing is we're often one of the ways that we come to our beliefs is through our personal experiences not just ours, but others. We love stories, we're storytelling creatures, stories that are emotional and compelling and vivid. We tend to. It's much more interesting than data Great.
Speaker 2:The problem is, our personal experiences can mislead us and we need science because our personal experiences can fool us. Our biases, our worldviews, our emotions, our motivations all of those can influence how we perceive the world, and when somebody tells us a compelling story that fits with those things, then we believe them. Now, the problem with anecdotes is that we can fool ourselves. I'm going to come back to that one in a second. With asthma. We can fool ourselves and also, anecdotes aren't controlled and people can lie. It's an unfortunate truth. Sometimes they're misconceiving their own experiences. So if we want to give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they actually did perceive something that they think and they're sharing that in an attempt to be helpful, but sometimes they're just not telling the truth.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So we can't let an emotional story persuade us. There was a really interesting study done and I will provide the link for you if you want to put it in the show notes. It was on asthma patients and what they did was they gave asthma patients. So, if I get this right, there was albuterol, which is an actual evidence-based treatment. There was sham acupuncture, a placebo, and something else. I'm forgetting the fourth. Honestly, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1:So is that the experiment where you asked people afterwards how they were feeling and they all said they felt better?
Speaker 2:But when you tested their lung functioning, the only group that improved significantly was the evidence-based treatment. So if I were to try some sort of placebo treatment something that's not evidence-based and I felt better. There is obviously value to feeling better. We have to be careful and recognize the difference between feeling better and being better.
Speaker 1:A hundred percent, because it's dangerous.
Speaker 2:If you don't actually treat asthma, you can die. And most of these alternative treatments are placebos. If they weren't placebos, they would be used in medicine.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So we need to be aware that there's a difference between feeling better and being better and not be convinced by a story, but the pseudoscience and the science denial. Back to that for a second, because what happens is, pseudoscience is when we want to believe something. So let's say that I want to believe that some sort of natural treatment can make it Sure Motivated reasoning right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because then what I end up doing is lowering my standard of evidence. Perfect or don't want to believe something. When I want to deny something, then I raise my standard of evidence impossibly high.
Speaker 1:Oh, can you please repeat that, because that is just gold.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because they're often working at the same time. So, germ theory denial versus some sort of pseudoscientific treatment If I don't want to believe in germs, then my standard of evidence is very, very high, and so I will deny scientific consensus. I'll pick fake experts, I'll cherry pick evidence, I'll um appeal to conspiracy. All these medical doctors are conspiring versus. Then, um, I have to fill that space with the pseudoscience, or sometimes it works. Conversely, I, I'm using pseudoscience, and so then I have to deny the relative science, the relevant science, if I want to. I want to um, uh, if I want to believe in something that's not evidence-based, a pseudoscientific treatment, I lower my standard of evidence. So all of this is, though, because of motivated reasoning. You nailed it right it's motivated reasoning. So if we want to know if a treatment actually works I tried it and felt better is not sufficient.
Speaker 1:Absolutely.
Speaker 2:We have to recognize that we were biased, we can tell ours, and so now let's design a study to actually test the treatment and accept the results, and then make better decisions for our health.
Speaker 1:So I guess the, the, the, the people that are I mean the the cause, because for my sins, I follow. I follow the conspiracy theories because I have to try and keep up with the latest and of course they're full of. It's interesting what you say about lying too, because they're just full of these narratives of the vaccine injured. They're full of them. And there's something in Australia it's just, it's hilarious but not called the Forest of the Fallen. So it's like in these weird conspiracy theories they wander around with these sort of crosses and then they hold a little rally in a park and they put crosses in the ground for the people that have died and that are vaccine injured, and then they have a sign and they walk around with signs saying this is the forest of the fallen. So they're literally just making stuff up. They're highly motivated. Highly motivated to hold the notion because, as we know, I mean conspiracy theorists. They're fascinating.
Speaker 1:But then they get to belong to something right. They get to belong to a group of people who know the truth, whereas you, with your science background, don't. Apparently, you don't know anything, you're just lying. I watch the comments on thinking is power. It's astonishing. You don't know anything, you're just lying. I watched the comments on thinking is power. It's astonishing, and from men. Men do not like the fact that you have amazing credentials, that you're smart, that you've created this amazing website and also that you're pretty. I think they don't like that.
Speaker 2:You know, the comments that you see are the ones that survive. No, oh my gosh, there are so many. I have a couple of moderators who help me and they are hiding and blocking people. Uh, and it's honestly, it's, it's I trigger men I know you do.
Speaker 1:Uh, melanie, in case people aren't watching, melanie is um, is pretty and blonde, and and that's a sin you can't be pretty, blonde and smart.
Speaker 2:It's not right right a woman who dares to have an opinion on social media how dare you, how absolutely dare you, have an opinion over men that know nothing?
Speaker 1:so I'm sorry I've interrupted you. Please go back to you. You were taking some notes, so we've talked about pseudoscience and science and science denialism because, okay, if we, if we back up a bit you're mentioning motivated reasoning- yeah.
Speaker 2:The question is what is?
Speaker 1:motivating it Good point.
Speaker 2:So when I teach my students, there's a great analogy called the elephant in the rider, and you've heard me talk about this. So the elephant in the rider is kind of like Daniel Kahneman's System 1, System 2.
Speaker 1:This is.
Speaker 2:Jonathan Wright's version and I find it much more relatable.
Speaker 1:So it's thinking. It's another version of thinking fast and slow, right Exactly.
Speaker 2:So imagine you have an elephant and a writer on top of the elephant in your brain. The elephant, the writer, is the part of your brain that you think of as you. It's the part that is capable of thinking critically, that is capable of higher order thought. But the writer sits on top of an elephant and the elephant is big and strong and difficult to control. The elephant is motivated by its emotions and identity, needs and biases. This is where our cognitive biases and heuristics come into play.
Speaker 1:So is it sort of prefrontal cortex stuff? Is that right? Yeah, and limbic system.
Speaker 2:Essentially yes. So then what happens is we think that when we've come to a conclusion, it's because our prefrontal cortex, or our writer, has evaluated the evidence in a logical manner and come to this conclusion. And of course I'm right because you know, I'm smart and I followed the evidence. But actually what's happened is, a lot of the time, the elephant has jumped to a conclusion Based on its social group. So its tribal needs, its identity needs, worldview eyes emotions.
Speaker 2:And then it suggests something to the writer and instead of correcting the elephant and thinking through it the elephant is difficult control. So the writer goes yeah, that sounds about right. Here are all the reasons why my elephant is right. So instead of actually using its ability to think critically through something, it post-rationalizes. So when we're talking to someone, it's important to understand this in ourselves.
Speaker 1:Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2:Talking to someone else. We're not talking to their writer, we're talking to their elephant. So their elephant is motivating their thinking. What are the reasons, what are the underlying motivations for why they've jumped to these conclusions? And oftentimes, especially when it comes to the wellness community and the conspiratorial community, it is identity needs, a need to feel special, a need to be a part of a community. It is really hard to disagree with our community.
Speaker 1:Agreed.
Speaker 2:You know, all these natural cures can cure everything and medical doctors and big pharma are all evil and there's a conspiracy. That narrative is really enticing and it can become part of these needs that we have that then motivate our thinking so that when we then deny germs and deny the efficacy of vaccines and say that, well, what are you doing? You don't need a vaccine or asthma treatment, you just need to think better thoughts and use this natural treatment. That is their elephant suggesting something to their writer and their writer coming up with justifications. And I say that because when we talk to other people, we need to recognize what their elephant is up to and avoid the tendency to go after that argument at the critical thinking level at all the reasons, because their elephant, sorry, is just going to be able to come up with more justifications.
Speaker 1:Is that we, david and I, often talk about identity, protective cognition, which is just. I just want to belong. I just want to belong to my group and it is dangerous for me to actually think differently, because then I'm going to be expelled from my tribe. You know, we know we're tribal, right, we know we're tribal and it's very important to feel part of something. Because this is what I often find is these outlying doctors. So outlying and it can be in climate change and it can definitely be in the whole wellness sphere is that you'll have an outlying doctor and they're degreed in something probably not like with COVID they're never epidemiologists that are doing this, but there's somebody in some area and they've come out and they've gone.
Speaker 1:This evidence is wrong. We should be using ivermectin, there's so much evidence for it. And then people with their motivated reasoning correct, because they need the low bar go and say this is right. The rest of the medical profession is wrong, or the rest of the climate scientists are wrong. This is the right person because it suits our current need. So if I don't want to believe in climate change, right. If it's inconvenient to me, I'm going to look for a doctor. I will like that, won't I A doctor. That's going well, it's actually not right. Everything's fine, is that right, melanie?
Speaker 2:Yeah, actually there's a great acronym that helps us understand how science denial works Um and it's flick. F, l, I, c, c, um. John Cook here in Australia actually he's out of um at the university of Melbourne has a wonderful game called cranky uncle, based on flick. I would highly recommend.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, I know, I love cranky uncle.
Speaker 2:Yes, Okay, so, but science? Now you brilliantly identify some of these characteristics. So flick stands for big experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:So big experts. That is the um, um and and reminder that science denial is motivated by not wanting to believe something.
Speaker 1:Got it.
Speaker 2:When I don't want to believe something, I can find an expert that tells me all of the rest of the experts are wrong. Sometimes it's an outlier expert who actually has relevant expertise, but sometimes it's somebody who has no relevant expertise at all.
Speaker 1:They just got doctored before their name right, Exactly yeah.
Speaker 2:So fake experts and one of the important things about science. So I'm not a medical expert. My background is in antichology and I focus now on thinking and on general education, science.
Speaker 2:There's a concept called competent outsider, which is we're talking about understanding science. We need to realize, um the that we cannot have expertise in every single area. Correct, the goal is to be a competent outsider, so to understand how that community produces knowledge and why it's reliable and how to find it if I need it. Yeah, good, good, great. So if I want to understand what the expert, what the current best understanding is about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, then I need to find the expert consensus, not that lone expert, lone fake expert that's saying that Also, he's also probably selling vitamins.
Speaker 2:So logical fallacies. It's all natural, um, scientists don't know everything. Uh, it's been. This has been used for centuries. All of these people are happy using this. Look at this one anecdote of somebody who is used it and feels better. Right, so logical fallacies, impossible expectations. This is the the um, the core of science denial. When we don't want to believe something, we set our expectations impossibly high. Look, science never provides proof. We are never 100% certain of everything we do not, and doctors would not say that vaccines are 100% safe and effective. There's always language that recognizes our limitations of knowledge. But if I say, look, language that recognizes our limitations of knowledge. But if I say, look, you haven't proven it with 100% certainty, look, these models were slightly wrong. Look, they predicted this and this happened. It's a way for me to discount everything else.
Speaker 1:So thanks so much for listening to part one of my interview with Melanie Tracett-King. Part two will be coming up very soon, so stay tuned. Tracit King, part two will be coming up very soon, so stay tuned. Thanks for tuning into why Smart Women with me, annie McCubbin.
Speaker 1:I hope today's episode has ignited your curiosity and left you feeling inspired by my anti-motivational style. Join me next time as we continue to unravel the fascinating layers of our brains and develop ways to sort out the fact from the fiction and the over 6,000 thoughts we have in the course of every day. Remember, intelligence isn't enough. You can be as smart as paint, but it's not just about what you know, it's about how you think. And in all this talk of whether or not you can trust your gut, if you ever feel unsafe, whether it's in the street, at work, in a car park, in a bar or in your own home, please, please, respect that gut feeling.
Speaker 1:Staying safe needs to be our primary objective. We can build better lives, but we have to stay safe to do that. And don't forget to subscribe, rate and review the podcast and share it with your fellow smart women and allies. Stay safe to do that and don't forget to subscribe, rate and review the podcast and share it with your fellow smart women and allies. Together, we're hopefully reshaping the narrative around women and making better decisions. So until next time, stay sharp, stay savvy and keep your critical thinking hat shiny. This is Annie McCubbin signing off from why Smart Women. See you later.
