SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Ersby]

One of the problems I have with the argument that sceptics were wrong when it came to heavier-than-air flight, continental drift and meteorites and therefore is wrong about other stuff too is that it relies on rather a loose definition on what a sceptic is. Sometimes I wonder how the pro-psi camp would react if people started referring to eugenics and phrenology as examples when sceptics were correct, and therefore correct about other stuff too.

It seems to me that people have become distracted by the inclusive nature of parapsychology (inter-connectedness, vague talk about energies, field consciousness) and assume that sceptics are against that rather than against what they see as shoddy science and a waste of resources.

Take faith-healing (an extreme example, but it serves as an illustration). Some people see that as a manifestation of God’s love, and to be against it, you must be against God’s love. Similarly I often get the impression that people think to be against parapsychology, you must be against feelings and empathy and intuition. And to be against psychic mediums, you must be against family love and relationships.

Certainly, before WW2, when pseudoscience was trying it’s best to be divisive (phrenology, physiognomy) the shoe was on the other foot and it was the sceptics who must’ve seemed like the lovely inclusive friendly ones.

 

[Pixel42]

In my experience, skeptics love to be wrong. They love even more to be proven wrong, because then they learn.

There are pathological deniers and just people who hate to be wrong (as often believers as skeptics), yes. But that doesn't cover skeptics well

It's the very fact that I really want to believe in ESP, ghosts, UFOs etc that makes me a sceptic, demanding evidence first. I know how easy it would be to fool myself into believing something I want to be true, but isn't. When I was younger I accepted these things without evidence, but I've grown up a bit since then.

 

[Mercutio]

One of the problems I have with the argument that sceptics were wrong when it came to heavier-than-air flight, continental drift and meteorites and therefore is wrong about other stuff too is that it relies on rather a loose definition on what a sceptic is. [snip]

Agreed. If people who actually follow the evidence are labeled "exceptions to the rule" and are put in one box, and people who behave as the strawskeptic does are put in another, it should come as no surprise when the skeptics are dogmatically wrong about case after case.

 

[Limbo]

My own experience, admittedly anecdotal, is limited to a few hundred skeptics I have met at conferences, whose papers I have read, and with whom I have interacted.

Your data?

I have to go by my own personal experience as a "woo" interacting with many different skeptics on different forums. In my experience skeptics are, generally speaking, more interested in making fun of woo-woos and taking their anger out on them than anything else.

Your experience with your fellow skeptics is as an insider, right? Maybe that makes you blind to their failings. Mine is as an outsider. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were an outsider trying to interact with them. Then perhaps you would see how quickly they tend resort to things like mockery, sarcasm, etc.

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

 

[Ersby]

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

As someone who’s posted on both skeptic and pro-psi forums, and pretty much given up on all except this one, I think that you’re confusing the skeptic’s bluntness for hatred and the believer’s passive-aggressive thinly-veiled pity as open-mindedness. I’ve often seen a beliver ostensibly take on board my comments, and so in the short term seem very open to new data, but then later they simply restate their old argument to other people, without having changed their views at all. This is, in my opinion, far more frustrating than someone who is sarcastic to me from the start. At least with them I can fight fire with fire.

Let’s not forget that even if the sceptical community is rife with hatred, doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.

You must be careful not to dehumanise your opponent in an attempt at convincing yourself that your own opinion must therefore be the correct one.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If there was, would such people be capable of evaluating all of it objectively?

Present the evidence and you can observe how skeptics react to it if you like. Very scientific. There's a paper in it for you.

Of course, you need the evidence first.

 

[tyr_13]

Your experience with your fellow skeptics is as an insider, right? Maybe that makes you blind to their failings.Mine is as an outsider.

Bolding mine.

And you haven't considered that your own perspective might be biased? Maybe that makes you see failings when there are few. Perhaps you take mockery and sarcasm too much to heart, and ignore the well thought out criticisms of your non evidence based beliefs. Also, to imply that you don't hold any bias when it comes to your own beliefs is, silly.

 

[fls]

I have to go by my own personal experience as a "woo" interacting with many different skeptics on different forums. In my experience skeptics are, generally speaking, more interested in making fun of woo-woos and taking their anger out on them than anything else.

Your experience with your fellow skeptics is as an insider, right? Maybe that makes you blind to their failings. Mine is as an outsider. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were an outsider trying to interact with them. Then perhaps you would see how quickly they tend resort to things like mockery, sarcasm, etc.

I see a two-fold reason for this. I think that it could be an expected (not excusable) response when someone is frustrated - especially if someone is already primed to be cynical. That is one of the hazards of talking to 'woos'. When one hears the same nonsensical arguments over and over again, or one asks for the 'best case' for a particular idea and is presented with fairly tortuous reasoning applied to weak evidence, it begins to erode your confidence that there is anything at all to these claims. This doesn't just concern me when it comes to parapsychology. It also bothers me when I see well-intentioned people blogging against homeopathy (for example) with fallacious and poorly-conceived arguments. It worries me that people, upon discovering the fallacious nature of these arguments, will assume that that's all there is to the story and that the case against homeopathy can be easily knocked down. The problem is that woos tend to create these strawmen, without skeptics having to go through the trouble of doing it for them. And it becomes frustrating to discover that some 'woos' think the strawmen can actually serve as a real defense, or when it starts to occur to skeptics that there isn't anything except strawmen. If any of that makes sense.

The second reason is that ridicule and mockery is not a reflection of one's state of mind, but is a deliberately chosen tool. There is an idea that playing nice merely allows people to remain complacent about their beliefs, even those that are ridiculous (I think that is the reasoning behind the approach taken in the movie "Religulous"). To actually get people to take notice requires stronger tactics - a demonstration of some emotion or ridicule. I have not yet decided whether this is a valid approach. Certainly some people come here and say that they were a believer until someone got in their face about it (whether it was Randi or someone else). On the other hand, one cannot deny Robert Lancaster's success, either. I suspect it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. And even though I feel much less comfortable when I try to get in someone's face (and so I would be inclined to dismiss it as a useful approach ), I cannot claim to know that it is not useful.

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

That is very disturbing to hear.

Linda

 

[Mercutio]

I have to go by my own personal experience as a "woo" interacting with many different skeptics on different forums. In my experience skeptics are, generally speaking, more interested in making fun of woo-woos and taking their anger out on them than anything else.

Your experience with your fellow skeptics is as an insider, right? Maybe that makes you blind to their failings. Mine is as an outsider. Perhaps your perspective would be different if you were an outsider trying to interact with them. Then perhaps you would see how quickly they tend resort to things like mockery, sarcasm, etc.

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

In addition to the comments by Ersby and tyr_13 (with which I find myself in agreement), I am compelled to observe that your own "rule" which I am an exception to is based on the flimsiest of evidence. I honestly was expecting something more--perhaps a content analysis of a representative sampling of posts--and a more appropriate analysis (as tyr_13 points out in an earlier comment, you would need to demonstrate that skeptics are meaner than the average internet poster, even if we were to take your data as representative; you have not taken adequate samples to do that--or at least, given a request to supply your data, you have not supplied any).

This is especially disconcerting given the strict self-imposed methodological rigor claimed by parapsychologists; because of their subject area, it is imperative that they construct well-controlled studies (as per the publication guidelines in the American Journal of Parapsychology--papers are accepted based not on results, but on methodology). A "standard" that is pulled out of thin air, then defended by dismissing counterexamples as "exceptions to the rule" is simply shoddy methodology. Worse, it is consistent with the interpretation of Munsterberg and Houdini that I mentioned before--it appears that you are seeking out confirming cases and dismissing disconfirming cases, and this is not up to the standards of either skeptical or believer peer-reviewed journals.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

People who hate their fellow man do not spend their free time debunking quack medicine and other magical panaceas. Every day wasted getting "alternative" cures is a day a person's disease gets worse. If anything, the people who lie about being able to contact the dead, solve financial problems, and cure disease, but who have no ability to do so are full of hate - or at least an utter lack of compassion for the suffering of others.

 

[Beth]

Overall, I would have to say the dominant vibe coming from skeptic communities is hatred.

That is very disturbing to hear.

Linda

I will support Limbo in this assessment of the dominate vibe from skeptic communities. That has been my experience with various on-line skeptic communities. However, I disagree that this is the 'rule'. A 'vibe' or impression can be created by a minority. I think most skeptics are no more hateful towards those who do not share their believe system that, for example, creationists are towards those who do not share their believe system. Rather, those who are hateful towards others are the people who make the largest impression. The majority of both groups that I have met, both on-line and IRL are respectful towards others regardless of the beliefs they may hold on various topics.

 

[Mercutio]

I will support Limbo in this assessment of the dominate vibe from skeptic communities. That has been my experience with various on-line skeptic communities. However, I disagree that this is the 'rule'. A 'vibe' or impression can be created by a minority. I think most skeptics are no more hateful towards those who do not share their believe system that, for example, creationists are towards those who do not share their believe system. Rather, those who are hateful towards others are the people who make the largest impression. The majority of both groups that I have met, both on-line and IRL are respectful towards others regardless of the beliefs they may hold on various topics.

Thank you for expressing this so well; this is part of what I was after when I suggested a content analysis. It is incredibly easy for an overall impression to be based on very little actual information (the literature on person perception is full of examples!), while a claimed "rule" in a formal paper or presentation really ought to be based on data.

 

[blutoski]

One should almost ask them not to give examples.

Here is the paper that is referred to in the quotes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/5/2670.full

Other examples include the work of Masaru Emoto.

Dean Radin suggests that the research by Daniel Simons using the famous gorilla clip accounts for knowledgeable scientists' lack of belief.

Yet it never seems to occur to them that asking us to accept such patently ridiculous 'evidence' for their argument serves only to weaken their point (that lack of acceptance is based on prejudice) and support our point (that acceptance corresponds to evidence).

Linda

What's really sad about it is that the gorilla video is an example in applied skepticism, rather than applied psi research. Basically, it's the reason we don't trust eyewitness reports without better-quality corroborating documentation.

Just because a bunch of people saw a ghost does not mean that's what actually happened.

More specifically, just because people didn't see Gellar pass the key to Shipi so that Shipi could bend it out of sight, doesn't mean Gellar has incredible powers.

If the researcher is not looking for the cheating, he doesn't see the cheating. Even when it's blatant. That's the point of the video.

And the overarching sadness about this thread is not just that the psi researchers appear to have abandoned the quest for better data in exchange for a call for reframing the problem as "scientists are headcases" (ah, but isn't distraction a magician's trick after all?).

No: the saddest part about it is that I think many are sincere that they think psychology only applies to skeptics. Maybe they just discovered the scientifically-accepted concepts of investment, cognitive dissonance, and tunnelvision. But here's the sad part: for some reason, it hasn't occured to them to do some self-examination and see if some of this could explain their plight. Compare to science, where these are assumed to be true, therefore the entire basis for experimental controls and submission of results to peer review by knowledgeable critics.

So, the original poster was asking for some feedback, and my response was a bit reserved, because it's hard to believe that a grownup would think that cognitive dissonance could be a factor for only one viewpoint. Obviously, it applies to everybody in the world, and whenever there's a complicated dispute you'll find it in spades on both sides. This is what skeptics assume going into an investigation. The purpose of experimental design is to structure an investigation so that the opinions of the participants do not influence the results.



Just as an example of how long cognitive dissonance/investment/confirmation bias has been a keystone in skeptical literature for generations, I recall a sad case of an homeopath who was willing to test his decision to diagnose through applied kinesiology. When using the scientific standard of double-blinding with placebo control, it didn't work. His conclusion: double-blinding with placebo controls is obviously crap because it doesn't show that AK works. This was from the early 1970s CSICOP.

Point is: did psi researchers really just discover this stuff? OK, if so: what efforts have been undertaken to educate their peers about these concerns, to ensure they mitigate them in their experimental design?

 

[blutoski]

It doesn't matter? Got any reliable evidence of that?

I think that the psychological disposition of the skeptic when he/she evaluates evidence of a claim that seems to go against their belief system is important.

Just as it's important when a YEC evaluates evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

Which is, I think, the point. The YEC's blinders are sad, but they don't affect my evaluation of the evidence.

The fact that there are some wacky skeptics out there doesn't affect other skeptics' evaluation of the evidence.

Mental blinders affect all aspects of our existence, regardless of which 'side' a person takes in a debate. It is not a surprise to skeptics that they have these mental blinders - we're the guys who talk about logical fallacies all day. The overarching assumption is that we have these human failings, and that it's important to adhere to a system instead of our instincts on questions about the nature of things. Thus the advocacy of scientific approaches whenever possible.

 

[godless dave]

I consider sarcasm and mockery to be appropriate responses to dishonesty and gullibility.

I do admit to holding some contempt for gullible people who don't think critically, and I know in many cases it isn't really fair. I had the advantages of a very good school district where critical thinking was encouraged, and most of all, having parents who demanded their children think critically. Many people did not have those advantages, and some were actively discouraged from critical thinking.

 

[blutoski]

One of the problems I have with the argument that sceptics were wrong when it came to heavier-than-air flight, continental drift and meteorites and therefore is wrong about other stuff too is that it relies on rather a loose definition on what a sceptic is. Sometimes I wonder how the pro-psi camp would react if people started referring to eugenics and phrenology as examples when sceptics were correct, and therefore correct about other stuff too.

The lack of a solid definition of skeptic causes problems when skeptics perform self-analysis. Would we include, say, homeopaths, since they're skeptical of science or medicine?

It's a real pill.

It seems to me that people have become distracted by the inclusive nature of parapsychology (inter-connectedness, vague talk about energies, field consciousness) and assume that sceptics are against that rather than against what they see as shoddy science and a waste of resources.

Take faith-healing (an extreme example, but it serves as an illustration). Some people see that as a manifestation of God’s love, and to be against it, you must be against God’s love. Similarly I often get the impression that people think to be against parapsychology, you must be against feelings and empathy and intuition. And to be against psychic mediums, you must be against family love and relationships.

Certainly, before WW2, when pseudoscience was trying it’s best to be divisive (phrenology, physiognomy) the shoe was on the other foot and it was the sceptics who must’ve seemed like the lovely inclusive friendly ones.

Mm. Indeed. The problem is that it's paying (imo too much) attention to Rhetoric, rather than openly debating the issues themselves.

If there's one thing that *can* be said about skeptics, it's that we're not too concerned about appearances. As a consequence, skeptics are a popular target.



Personally, I'm interested in the psychological composition of skepticism, but investigations suffer from the boundary problem (who is a 'skeptic' for the sake of the investigation) and also from access to skeptics in general. Many are simply not connected to organized skepticism, so there is an overwhelming selection bias in any survey that depends on self-identification.

I would not, for example, consider this forum to be a good sample of skeptics, although it may be a good source for skeptics.

I think I'm staying on thread topic by sharing my thoughts on skeptical psychology, but I'm willing to start a different thread. (I have noticed that my threads ask uncomfortable questions and quickly die.)

 

[Ersby]

The term “skeptic” is, it seems to me, both derided and desired by the pro-psi community. They are quick to demonise and belittle the term yet also try to use the name themselves, in sites like Skeptical Inquiry or Skeptiko.

 

[JihadJane]

Finding it hard to believe that other people were not deceived is nothing but an appeal to ignorance.

"I can't believe it's not butter". Well, it isn't.

If a medium is caught cheating once, why on Earth should she get the benefit of the doubt from then on? Instead, it should be emphasized that if she cheated once, there is even more reason to believe that she cheated since then, especially in those cases where it is hard to tell if she was.

James Randi has been caught cheating as in lying (see Rupert Sheldrake, psychic dog experiment). Why is he still given the benefit of the doubt?

 

[cj.23]

James Randi has been caught cheating as in lying (see Rupert Sheldrake, psychic dog experiment). Why is he still given the benefit of the doubt?

Or making an honest mistake perhaps? I have no ide what you are on about, but considering how gracious Mr Randi was when I once emailed him mistakenly criticising something he had written, and then it turned out he had written no such thing -- hell I was embarassed - and his general willingness to be entirely reasonable -- I would be surprised if this was so. He strikes me as a having a dry sense of humour, and a lot of personal integrity - and hell I'm a ghosthunter, quite nototious for it. CAught the affliction in my teens and never recovered.

If you have evidence of willful deliberate misrepresentation by Mr Randi on Sheldrake or anything else do start a new thread to discuss it though. My experience suggests Mr Randi makes mistakes, which being human I am not surprised by, and acknowledges them cheerfully. I think if we could all do that it would be a better place, but I'm curious ot hear the details.

cj x

 

[blutoski]

James Randi has been caught cheating as in lying (see Rupert Sheldrake, psychic dog experiment). Why is he still given the benefit of the doubt?

You'lll have to be more specific. A reference would be nice, so we could talk about it. Otherwise, it's just sticks and stones.

Also: was it a deliberate lie to beguile and mislead readers, or an honest error? I don't hold honest errors against anybody, especially if they return to them in an errata. Happens all the time.

Or was it a difference of opinion? I remember Sheldrake accusing Randi of 'lying' about his research "not being replicated". But this is because they have a difference of opinion about what counts as replication. And since scientists share Randi's interpretation, I don't regard this as an actual lie on Randi's part. Just pitifulness on Sheldrake's.