Sleeping with the Enemy
I am in love with a conspiracy theorist. While this is a revelation for me, evidently I have for some time. While I hesitate to define my partner by the few irrational beliefs that she holds, the statement rings true.
I began dating my partner; let’s just call her Jessica, while I was still in high school, long before I became active in the skeptical community. When I did become more skeptically active (blogging, reading, advocating, etc.), a mere two years ago, I realized that many of the controversial topics that we would discuss in passing had slants to them that were recognizable to me. I had heard their fallacies and discrepancies from my inflow of skeptical media (when I was just starting out, mainly The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast). While this generated the occasional fight between the two of us, nothing really ever came of it save an eyebrow raise from me.
Jessica is a very intelligent woman, having recently become licensed as a registered nurse, and I can say (though I am obviously biased) that she is an all-around good person. There is no indication from speaking with her that she may believe that crop circles are matted down by radiation beams from alien craft, but she does. Looking at her family, Jessica does not theorize alone. Jessica’s father and stepmother are big believers in the principles outlined in movies like “The Secret,” with much confusion about the workings of quantum mechanics thrown into the mix. All of her three sisters could be called “creatives” who routinely speak in what Jessica and I have affectionately deemed as “sparkle-talk.” It typifies the kind of New Age speech that conflates scientific sounding buzzwords like “energy,” “vibration,” and “quantum,” with wishful thinking into what most often sounds like a recitation of a Deepak Chopra love poem. Beyond this, rants by the likes of David Icke and Alex Jones find hold throughout Jessica’s family. I try not to pass judgment; everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion (but not their own facts), however uncritical. This puts me in the unenviable position of moderating my stance on topics and thinking less of the scientific faculties of parties involved whenever I meet with them. It must be clearly stated that these are all loving, compassionate, intelligent people that I care for very much, though my disagreement with many aspects of their worldview cannot be hidden. Conspiracy, you could then say, runs in the family.
Jessica’s theories were benign enough at first, “I think aliens have visited us,” “the government does shady things,” “everything is energy,” etc. But perhaps the reason why the more skeptically egregious theories never surfaced was because I had learned, as she no doubt did, to avoid argument. Like it or not, I pride myself as being someone you don’t want to argue with (reasonably, of course). However, after she mentioned the movie “Thrive,” and the topics within of which I have already written about here, the gloves came off. Chemtrials, free energy machines, Federal Reserve rants, UFO’s, and “Big Pharma” all made an appearance. Any skeptic will immediately recognize these topics as tiredly debunked theories that typify the phrase “unsinkable rubber ducks.” Jessica’s endorsement of the theories, and her level of disapproval for the skeptical point of view touched off a fight that not only was uncomfortable for both of us (hitting to the heart of both our belief systems), but also shook my very notions about Jessica. I cannot say that I am proud of thinking differently of her after such an exchange, but the skeptical position seemed so counter to everything that I was hearing, coming from the woman I thought I knew rather well.
Interestingly, Jessica has a taste only for a certain flavor of conspiracy theory. She agrees on the scientific views of evolution, climate change, and vaccination. This is not of small importance. Often when in the grip of a conspiracy-style mindset, a whole portion of the brain associated with information processing is seemingly changed to accept a suite of beliefs ranging from AGW denial to 9/11 “Truth.” With the more science-based topics, Jessica scores very high on the skeptical scale. She certainly knows more about anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology than I do, and I trust her opinion on those matters. It just seems as though that when it comes to more socially motivated theories like “free energy machine suppression from Big Energy” or “universal energy oneness,” the same critical faculties that can implement treatment or therapy after open heart surgery turn off. Perhaps this comes from a socially constructed distrust of government or ingrained New Age mentalities. Either way, Jessica’s views on these topics smash against the wall of skepticism.
And yet we, happily, stay together.
Dealing with Compromise
I have not let my feelings about her theories ruin our relationship, nor do I plan to. We have gotten past the arguments, albeit in a “out of sight, out of mind” kind of way. Just as my belief that humans do not have souls (because everything that you could call a soul is the mind, created by the brain), clashes with Jessica’s more idealistic idea of the afterlife, and is therefore seldom spoken of, our differing viewpoints on conspiracy topics have simply been quarantined. Being someone who calls himself a skeptic, I am aware that this is a fairly uncritical way to deal with the problem. Though we actively try not to talk about it, because it upsets both of us, I do not plan on letting it go completely. But for now, it is buried.
If this kind of compromise, even if it is an unspoken and cowardly one, proves anything, it proves (to myself at least) that a relationship can handle the strain of two opposing viewpoints. I can only say this because the topics on which we disagree are rather nebulous and do not affect either of our careers or livelihoods. However, as a medical practitioner, if she decides to forgo vaccination because, “they haven’t been tested enough,” or some other hand-waiving reason that struggles to fit in the dissonance that the “Big Pharma” conspiracy theory constantly tries to shoehorn into discussion, my tune will likely change dramatically. I will draw the line when a conspiracy theory bleeds enough into real life to hurt people.
I cannot stress this enough: I love this woman. We have been dating for a little more than five years and she is the best thing that has happened to me. Though my scientific career and skeptical advocacy takes up much of my time, I can drop the guard of incredulity for a while around her. Keeping up the skeptical shield gets tiring after awhile, and though it is a noble cause (I think), it is inevitable that it gets put down for at least part of the day. I can do this around her and relax. I am not advocating letting others talk nonsense without scrutiny, but rarely do we square off against pseudoscience and against those we love. The common skeptical tactics of questioning, pressing, and rebutting have a different feel in a relationship. Online, answering a comment that basically calls me out for being “too close-minded,” (or another anti-skeptic response ad nauseum), I am not worried about rocking the foundations of someone’s beliefs enough to encourage doubt or assert the scientific position. However, doing this to someone that you care about necessitates an entirely different approach, one that I admittedly have not figured out yet.
Mind you, I do not let pseudoscientific assertions off the hook. I take issue with every one of them. Rest assured that the first time that she revealed her belief in chemtrails “engineered by the government to make you sick so that Big Pharma can make money,” I was at the same time shocked and disappointed. How could this woman who I thought I knew so well hide something that could so easily inform much of her thinking? As I said above, dealing with this sort of revelation in a relationship is not congenial to a typical skeptic rebuttal. Maintaining compassion in the face of abject nonsense is difficult. I will continue to chip away at the mountain of conjecture, but by taking a different road.
It is not all bad either. Jessica adeptly balances me out even though she is uncritical about some topics. As a card-carrying skeptic, many times I find myself dismissing claims out of hand due to the classic “knee jerk” skeptical reaction. Even though we may be dealing with topics upon which the consensus has decided, she encourages me to consider other possibilities. She doesn’t know it, but she makes me a better skeptic as a result.
My skeptical gun, primed by a daily consumption of blogs, RSS feeds, articles, books, videos, comments, etc., is now hair-trigger. This is helpful when you write skeptical content all day or all of your media is either skeptical or scientific (as mine usually is), but my sometimes aggressive inquiries have gotten me into hot water. Even a passing mention of quantum mechanics sets me off in the direction of decisive argumentation, even when my partner’s point is nowhere near the debunked deep-end. I enjoy being a skeptic, but my skepticism often conflicts with the one I love. An obvious solution would be to find a partner with similar interests as my own, but I do not see that as a reasonable or useful option. The few problems that my partner’s uncritical beliefs have ever caused me are minor when compared to our relationship as a whole. Perhaps the more die-hard among you would do things differently, but a difference in opinion (though I consider many of my positions to be factual) is not worth the dissolution of a relationship. Love is not simply based upon the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. Everyone has a closet in which skeletons and less admirable or embarrassing qualities reside, and these accompany each relationship. Find me a relationship in which there are no personal qualities of each partner that are curtailed or modified in order to make the relationship work; I would be surprised if you could. I view the belief in conspiracy theories to occupy this relationship closet. It is surely something that I will not forget, but it is not something worth sacrificing so much happiness for. She would relegate my hair-trigger skepticism and argumentative nature (at least part of it) to the closet as well, I’m sure. Does skepticism extend into every cranny of intimacy? Should it? These are questions that I am still wrestling with.
Love and Conflict
The obvious facts are these: I am happy, I love my partner, she (hopefully after this article) feels the same way, I object to all of the conspiracy theories to which she is subscribed, and she views me as too “closed-minded” (we will let that fallacy slide). Among a world of possible problems a relationship can have, I should be happy that mine are so minor. Even so, these minor problems hit me particularly hard. Everything that I write about, read about, comment and talk about, disagrees with my partner’s specific beliefs. I have not decided if it is a skeptical imperative to do something beyond occasionally argue, but I am reminded that skepticism is not a religion or a dogma. I am not prohibited from cavorting with the enemy, or from loving a member of a different faith, as it were. As many leading skeptics have said, skepticism is a process. This leads me to think that my “tolerance” of my partner’s beliefs is justified. Rather than argue and end the relationship, or alter it to the point of dysfunction, the skeptical duty must be to reasonably and rationally discuss any and all points, emphasize the process of skepticism, and plant the seed of the conspiracy theory’s destruction.
I am certain that my dilemma is not an isolated one, and I know that others have settled upon the same conclusion that I have been alluding to here. I know the atheist and the faithful, the philosopher and the mystic, the skeptic and the believer have gotten together in the past, and are no doubt together as I write this paragraph. To say that such a worn path is the wrong one is not warranted by observation. I want to be true to my scientific and skeptical background, but I also want to cultivate a loving relationship. My partner and I disagree, tremendously in some cases, but who does not disagree with their partner and find compromise (and over much bigger issues). Granted, as a research fellow with the JREF, having irrational beliefs so close to my heart is both dangerous and painful. But characterizing the entire personhood of the one I love by a set of beliefs that are in protest with the very rational and intelligent person that she is has to be an error. I cannot help but think that throwing away a relationship in the name of being correct is foolish. Relationships are about compromise. As long as she trusts me enough to voice her beliefs to me, I will listen, I will question, but I will be compassionate. She deserves that and more, as do the other human beings harboring sincere irrationalities. In the meantime, I will try my best to employ skepticism at its most potent: questionable theories will be questioned, arguments argued, and rebuttals rebutted. But my partner is not a debate to be won, she is a person, and conspiracy theorist or not, I love her.
Kyle Hill is the newly appointed JREF research fellow specializing in communication research and human information processing. He writes daily at the Science-Based Life blog and you can follow him on Twitter here.