Skepticism can lose friends...

I've found telling co-worker woos the truth in a social setting is as much a minefield as telling your best friend the man she is in love with is sleeping with half the town. You may have all the evidence, proof and the best of intentions, but you also have particularly volatile situation.

It may be sad I zip my lip at a party with co-workers, but a situation with co-workers is much different than a social gathering with friends. What happens after the office buzz says you feel those who believe in psychics are nimrods, and the boss is one of these people? Said nimrod may give you your walking papers as a holiday bonus.

That said, I do not socialize with co-workers unless I have to. Friends and work are two things I do not mix. Letting down your hair with co-workers is not a wise thing to do.
 
Personally I almost never call BS outright. I pause thoughtfully and say something like, 'if that were true it would mean <some subtle absurdity>. This usually leads to more direct questions about various things. Sometimes the absurdity can be as simple as describing the theory behind it, like homeopathy. It avoids the issue of directly countering their perceived personal experiences. Thinking in ifs also allows them to input their own what ifs to counter. It then becomes very non-confrontational and does not allow them the luxury of of blaming you for being rude because you are being questioned directly, and you never claimed BS outright. About the time they run out of what ifs of their own they may ask about things they have read. It indicates that they can no longer counter. This is when you are allowed a little bit of authority and mention that you have studied this material in some detail. Game over, respect maintained and/or increased.

Sure believers will still believe but the fence sitters will not be lead off the wrong side. Occasionally the believer will try baiting you to get more confrontational like saying, "So how do you explain <previous personal experience>". I just say, "I don't know but if you think there is some way to demonstrate something like that I will help you". There's not even any need to mention I'd help them get a million buck to boot.

There are actually a few people that call me at home just to get advice about whether some issue is woo or not.
 
Thanks for the encouraging read, my_wan. You are now officially my idol. I'll try to take some leaves out of your book next time I'm at a party. :)
 
Lionking-
If the experience has made you seriously revise your opinion of your colleagues, then you might consider moving jobs.

Alternately, you must alter your approach.

First- never argue with drunks. It's a waste of time for both parties.
Second- use humour. Someone tells you about his homoeopathic ear candles, just shake your head, grin and say "Dearie me. Dearie, dearie me." Then start talking to some one else.
Another fun put down is " You don't really believe that, do you"? expressed with apparently genuine surprise and a hint of disappointment.

Don't challenge. Don't pour scorn. Just let them explain their loony notion in front of everyone else. No matter how stupid it is, make no further comment. Just sit there and let everyone else decide for himself.

People defend when attacked. Do the jiu-jitsu thing; move aside and let them throw themselves.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Lionking-
If the experience has made you seriously revise your opinion of your colleagues, then you might consider moving jobs.

Alternately, you must alter your approach.

First- never argue with drunks. It's a waste of time for both parties.
Second- use humour. Someone tells you about his homoeopathic ear candles, just shake your head, grin and say "Dearie me. Dearie, dearie me." Then start talking to some one else.
Another fun put down is " You don't really believe that, do you"? expressed with apparently genuine surprise and a hint of disappointment.

Don't challenge. Don't pour scorn. Just let them explain their loony notion in front of everyone else. No matter how stupid it is, make no further comment. Just sit there and let everyone else decide for himself.

People defend when attacked. Do the jiu-jitsu thing; move aside and let them throw themselves.
Click to expand...


Very well put.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Don't challenge. Don't pour scorn. Just let them explain their loony notion in front of everyone else. No matter how stupid it is, make no further comment. Just sit there and let everyone else decide for himself.
Click to expand...
That would work so long as everyone else didn't agree with the woo in question. This is kind of the situation lionking described. Merely shaking one's head in distain in that kind of crowd makes one look just as condescending as actually making some kind of intelligent response.
 
True- but if everyone agrees, either you're in the wrong company, or the woo is your boss and everyone is agreeing to suck up.

In which case you are working for the wrong company.

There's a difference between a winnable fight and just banging your head on a wall of stupid. You have to know which is which.
 
Soapy Sam said:
True- but if everyone agrees, either you're in the wrong company, or the woo is your boss and everyone is agreeing to suck up.

In which case you are working for the wrong company.

There's a difference between a winnable fight and just banging your head on a wall of stupid. You have to know which is which.
Click to expand...
I agree it was an unwinnable fight I should never have got into. However I have worked effectively in this company for the past 10 years and it is a great job. I have certainly learnt a bit about my colleagues, but not enough to quit.
 
Soapy Sam said:
True- but if everyone agrees, either you're in the wrong company, or the woo is your boss and everyone is agreeing to suck up.

In which case you are working for the wrong company.

There's a difference between a winnable fight and just banging your head on a wall of stupid. You have to know which is which.
Click to expand...
This goes back to one of the reasons why I found myself speaking up whenever certain woo subjects were brought up, though. It wasn't so much that everyone agreed, but rather that the charlatans were typically convincing enough to fool unsuspecting listeners, even if they could not fool me. To use the obvious analogy, fundamentalist religious beliefs persist because enough people find them convincing. I didn't consider it fair when some believer started spouting off about past life regression, for example, and people who were previously undecided would get suckered right in. In other words, it didn't matter that I was smart enough not to be fooled. I found that if I did nothing, I was soon to be surrounded by idiots in no time.

I've read over the rest of the posts in this thread, and while I'm still rather cynical after the whole mess I got myself into, I feel I might be able to put people's advice to use if I ever find myself in the same situation again. So even though I'm not the OP, I'd also like to thank everyone who responded.
 
Indeed. We should always bear in mind that the ones worth talking to may be the other listeners, rather than the speaker. Some people (possibly all people) are single-issue woos, sane enough on all but one topic. Such folk can be very hard to talk out of their particular oddity. Their hearers may respond to the speaker's conviction positively, yet be open to balanced argument afterwards.
Often- especially if it's the boss riding his particular hobby-horse, people will appear to agree out of politeness, or even fear. Change the context and they may have a very different attitude. Like battles, choosing the right ground can make the diference between a truly winnable fight and a Pyrrhic victory.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Indeed. We should always bear in mind that the ones worth talking to may be the other listeners, rather than the speaker. Some people (possibly all people) are single-issue woos, sane enough on all but one topic. Such folk can be very hard to talk out of their particular oddity. Their hearers may respond to the speaker's conviction positively, yet be open to balanced argument afterwards.
Often- especially if it's the boss riding his particular hobby-horse, people will appear to agree out of politeness, or even fear. Change the context and they may have a very different attitude. Like battles, choosing the right ground can make the difference between a truly winnable fight and a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
For those who are determined and stead fast in their beliefs, why bother trying to talk them out of it. As a child anybody trying to talk me out of something only made me more determined to continue to hold on to whatever mischief I was up to.

Instead of talking them out of it;you can but agree and counter-act their determination by showing evidence to the contrary. You may not persuade them but others may be persuaded otherwise.

What gives a skeptic the right to demand, and some do. Demand their option is the only one to take. Makes skepticism more of a dictatorship than an educational bank.
 
Talking a kid out of mischief is not the same thing as correcting an adult who holds incorrect ideas.

Whether it's worth the bother (to you or to me) depends on circumstances. For instance, if your boss believes in magnetic fuel enhancers and you work as a garage mechanic, his beliefs might well affect your job. That's the sort of situation where I would consider a move, if the guy would not believe evidence. He's not just dim- he's dangerous.

But with someone as stubborn as you describe, it likely would be futile to tackle him. I think it would be wrong in such a case to allow him to sread his nonsense to others, without pointing out to them where he was wrong.

I agree that actions speak louder than words, but words are useful too.

Anyone has both the right and the responsibility to both display and demand honesty and correctness in his dealings with others. Of course there are limits- and the fanatical woo-debunker is as much of a pain as many of those he seeks to debunk.
But to sit quiet and let others spread falsehood through ignorance when one knows the truth- this is (in my opinion) morally wrong.
At the very least, we should point out that sincerity is no guard against error.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ - think it possible you may be mistaken."-Oliver Cromwell, to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
 
Last edited:
My technique for dealing with an OP situation is to use some cold reader stuff.

Firstly, I never say to the person 'You are wrong'. That just raises their defensive shields and anyone else listening will tend to side with them immediately.

Secondly, I say something like 'Yeah, I believed that [insert woo] a while ago until I asked a few questions'. At this point you start asking yourself some questions and then answering yourself. E.g. How can a medicine with no trace of a curing element have an effect on me. I don't think it can!

At this point the person you are dealing with is a mere spectator witnessing a one person internal struggle. And you are in control.

Then comes the final, closing statement.

'When I stopped believing in [insert woo] I compared it to when I stopped believing in Santa. I really loved Santa, but then I just grew up I suppose'

Now, since almost everyone has gone through the Santa belief cycle this will plant a seed that it's ok to change one's mind.

My 2c worth.

ERS
 
With role models like Randi, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Penn & Teller how could skeptics possibly come across at parties as smug, arrogant, self-righteous, shrill fanatics?

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE! :p
 
Last edited:
You know, at a work outing with drink not everything which is said is actually what the person saying it believes. Sometimes it is just to keep things moving when the group of people have very little in common. Especially when some well meaning person says " shop talk is off limits tonight". For what it is worth I have managed to get myself into the position of being a known sceptic without falling out with folk. People willl bring up some woo notion and give me a sop like "just cover your ears for a minute, Fiona" It is good humoured and nothing hangs on it. If there is occasion for a serious discussion we have them and I manage to make my points and sometimes even give them pause for thought. But mostly it is just passing the time and I personally don't like killing a conversation cos then I have to find a new topic :)
 
Fiona, (All the Fionas I know are both sane and pretty) I'd edit your first line a little-
You know, not everything which is said is actually what the person saying it believes.

Yes. We don't have to be on guard all the time. A work party probably isn't the time to get too heavy.
Drink, of course, can lessen inhibitions on both sides .
We must choose our fights sensibly and live to fight another day.
 
Everyone at work knows I'm a skeptic - people often often joke about it... No one has any issues with it (as far as I know).

In fact I often have some really good debates with some of my collegues. About both woo and work issues...
 
lionking said:
So how do you all respond to such ignorant superstition in a social environment, particularly with work colleagues?
Click to expand...

I have a number of politically conseravtive co-workers (mainly employees, not necessarily my fellow contractors) and when they say something that makes me roll my eyes I just make a joke about the topic rather than tell them how full of brown they are. There's a few people that I think would have shared woo with me (political, paranormal, religious, whatever), that after a time and some subtle humor they realized I'd wipe the floor with them and their crazy ideas if they said anything rediculous to me.

Interestingly enough, a number of my co-workers are familiar with my JREF association a few have come to see me as the go to guy for whether something is B.S. or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom