SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[eirik]

You know I'm not really sure he ever claimed this. So 'skeptics' might tend to be mean, petty, ********, but they also tend to be correct, mean, petty, ********.

Sorry, I'll try to be more blunt in my rethorical questions He didn't claim it directly, but he implied it, and continues to do so.

I thought the OP started well, it was based on a good idea, and could have given some refreshing information on a little debated subjectt. Instead I find out it's just a "clever" ad hominem attack on people who bases their worldview on facts, not fiction. Disappointing.

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry, I'll try to be more blunt in my rethorical questions He didn't claim it directly, but he implied it, and continues to do so.

I thought the OP started well, it was based on a good idea, and could have given some refreshing information on a little debated subjectt. Instead I find out it's just a "clever" ad hominem attack on people who bases their worldview on facts, not fiction. Disappointing.

I thought the same thing to, hoping for a serious discussion and deep research. Oh well, there are still pieces of information to be picked through.

 

[godless dave]

Two aspects of my personality that I'm not proud of are I like being right, and I like winning an easy fight. Arguing with creationists, for example, is attractive to me because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. There are good reasons to combat irrational thinking and dishonesty, but assuaging my own ego is not one of them. So that's something I struggle with.

 

[CFLarsen]

How did the fish get in the barrel?

God put them there...

 

[JihadJane]

And these were the traits they were referring to:

"An entrenched obsession with safety, security, and order.
Rigidly absolutist “black-and-white” thinking (e.g., us against them).
An overemphasis on “strength,” power, and control; a “might makes right” orientation.
Authoritarian submission: a willingness to blindly obey the rules of authorities.
Authoritarian aggression: an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by the authorities; bullying individuals or groups perceived to threaten traditional values.
A belief that negotiation, understanding, empathy, and compromise are weak.
A belief in the need to punish those who do not follow rules to the letter.
Scornful rejection of the subjective, imaginative, and aesthetic dimensions of life.
Superstition, cliché-mongering, stereotyping, and fatalism.
A belief in fixed, unalterable, and traditional roles for women.
Secret insecurity when unable to live up to high standards imposed publicly on others.
Identification with those in power, with excessive emphasis on posturing toughness.
Destructiveness, cynicism, general hostility, and a habit of putting down perceived opponents.
Projection: the tendency to see evil, exploitativeness, and danger in others instead of in oneself.
An exaggerated concern with other people’s sexual activity."

This is what I'm talking about. This deserves ridicule. I'm sorry for speaking plainly, but I think we need to call a spade a spade here. If we are trying to determine whether skeptics ridicule arguments that don't deserve ridicule, it doesn't help to continue to serve up arguments that are ridiculous. Can you understand that it becomes difficult for us to overcome the impression that it leaves us with, no matter how genuine our efforts?

Linda

Posting this list out of context is somewhat misleading. The next sentence says: "The authors also found a very high correlation between possessing a number of these traits and demonstrating a consistent and malignant prejudice against out-groups."

To qualify for an Authoritarian Personality badge requires possessing only some of the traits. I am not claiming, for example, that I've noticed that skeptics are likely to be voyeurs. I have particulaary observed the following traits in those posting online comments as supposed skeptics:

-Rigidly absolutist “black-and-white” thinking (e.g., us against them).

- An overemphasis on “strength,” power, and control; a “might makes right” orientation.

- Authoritarian submission: a willingness to blindly obey the rules of authorities.

- Authoritarian aggression: an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by the authorities; bullying individuals or groups perceived to threaten traditional values.

-A belief that negotiation, understanding, empathy, and compromise are weak.

- Identification with those in power, with excessive emphasis on posturing toughness.

- Destructiveness, cynicism, general hostility, and a habit of putting down perceived opponents.

Some of these traits may not be so obvious in the paranormal section of JREF, being the least demading for those attracted to shooting fish in barrels.

Godless dave honestly decribes what I suspect are the primary motivations for those who identify themsleves as skeptics and who engage enthusiastically in online debate:

Two aspects of my personality that I'm not proud of are I like being right, and I like winning an easy fight. Arguing with creationists, for example, is attractive to me because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. There are good reasons to combat irrational thinking and dishonesty, but assuaging my own ego is not one of them. So that's something I struggle with.

Is anyone perpared to argue that "shooting fish in a barrel" not connected with ego gratification?

My impressions are based on two years of mingling with the unwashed, as it were , mostly on JREF, the ScrewLooseChange comments section, and commentisfree.

A tendency to use infantalising, patronising language (and often crude abuse) when describing or addressing the people they disagree with is the most outstanding trademark of the Skeptic movement, in all of its branches.

 

[fls]

Posting this list out of context is somewhat misleading. The next sentence says: "The authors also found a very high correlation between possessing a number of these traits and demonstrating a consistent and malignant prejudice against out-groups."

Yes, the sentence refers to "these traits" and I thought that it would be helpful to give some context to the remark by copying the list of traits verboten.

To qualify for an Authoritarian Personality badge requires possessing only some of the traits. I am not claiming, for example, that I've noticed that skeptics are likely to be voyeurs. I have particulaary observed the following traits in those posting online comments as supposed skeptics:

-Rigidly absolutist “black-and-white” thinking (e.g., us against them).

- An overemphasis on “strength,” power, and control; a “might makes right” orientation.

- Authoritarian submission: a willingness to blindly obey the rules of authorities.

- Authoritarian aggression: an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by the authorities; bullying individuals or groups perceived to threaten traditional values.

-A belief that negotiation, understanding, empathy, and compromise are weak.

- Identification with those in power, with excessive emphasis on posturing toughness.

- Destructiveness, cynicism, general hostility, and a habit of putting down perceived opponents.

Again, these statements are trivially easy to counteract, especially since you have already demonstrated that at least some don't apply. For example, you already discovered that many of us pay no attention to what Randi has to say on the subject of Sheldrake, which negates the idea that we are blindly submitting to authority. It is easy to dismiss your criticisms as due to prejudice because some are so obviously ridiculous. This makes it difficult to give thoughtful consideration to anything else to anything else you have to say.

Some of these traits may not be so obvious in the paranormal section of JREF, being the least demading for those attracted to shooting fish in barrels.

Godless dave honestly decribes what I suspect are the primary motivations for those who identify themsleves as skeptics and who engage enthusiastically in online debate:

Is anyone perpared to argue that "shooting fish in a barrel" not connected with ego gratification?

You have already been told by several people here, myself included, that it is definitely not gratifying to shoot fish in a barrel, regardless of whether some people find it so. Is this not a demonstration of what we have been complaining about? You have simply ignored those statements that negate your prejudices in order to maintain the illusion that your prejudices are valid.

My impressions are based on two years of mingling with the unwashed, as it were , mostly on JREF, the ScrewLooseChange comments section, and commentisfree.

A tendency to use infantalising, patronising language (and often crude abuse) when describing or addressing the people they disagree with is the most outstanding trademark of the Skeptic movement, in all of its branches.

But considering your actions in this thread, isn't it likely that you simply remembered the few times you saw the use of this kind of language and ignored all the rest?

If you were really serious about understanding the skeptic, you would document the examples that don't confirm your impressions in addition to those that do.

Linda

 

[Ersby]

My impressions are based on two years of mingling with the unwashed, as it were , mostly on JREF, the ScrewLooseChange comments section, and commentisfree.

A tendency to use infantalising, patronising language (and often crude abuse) when describing or addressing the people they disagree with is the most outstanding trademark of the Skeptic movement, in all of its branches.

If skeptics used infantalising, patronising language and then put a smiley afterwards, would that be okay?

 

[JihadJane]

If skeptics used infantalising, patronising language and then put a smiley afterwards, would that be okay?

It would indicate that they were conscious of indulging in playground antics. It might lead to greater mutual empathy and self-awareness in the long run.

The majority of online skeptics I've come across take themselves too seriously to use smileys, probably believing that admitting to feeling emotions or using playful visual shorthand are signs of weakness. (See The Authoritarian Personality).

 

[Ersby]

So it would be okay?

 

[JihadJane]

I'm okay with infantalising, patronising language with or without smileys. It tells a lot about the person using it, the likely psychological foundations of their beliefs and the probable strength of their arguments. I find it reassuring. It makes the user look weak and unsure of themselves.

To be 100% honest I stick the smileys in partly because I know it upsets a certain type of person.

 

[Ersby]

Thank you for your honesty. I now understand where you're coming from.

 

[Moochie]

Generalizations heaped on generalizations, demonstrating bugger all.

IMO fear is the key -- a person who fears does not know truth. A person who knows truth does not, indeed cannot fear.

It doesn't matter what label you give yourself, or what label others attach to you. Truth is self-evident to all with eyes to see. Fear comes from refusing to look.


M.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm okay with infantalising, patronising language with or without smileys. It tells a lot about the person using it, the likely psychological foundations of their beliefs and the probable strength of their arguments. I find it reassuring. It makes the user look weak and unsure of themselves.

To be 100% honest I stick the smileys in partly because I know it upsets a certain type of person.

And you're calling skeptics 'infantile'?

 

[godless dave]

When someone believes in something as ludicrous as, say, that vaccines cause autism, something that was publicly disproved years ago, or something as blatantly ridiculous as the 2012 nonsense, can you understand why others would us patronizing language? In situations like those it is very difficult for me to believe that the believer is being honest.

 

[blutoski]

IMO fear is the key -- a person who fears does not know truth. A person who knows truth does not, indeed cannot fear.

It doesn't matter what label you give yourself, or what label others attach to you. Truth is self-evident to all with eyes to see. Fear comes from refusing to look.

I have trouble understanding this. My observation is that lack of information is just as likely to eliminate fear as incite it.

Just as an anecdote: as a lifeguard, I'm afraid to go into certain bodies of water because I know the bottom is cluttered with sharp objects. Other swimmers have no fear of going in, because they don't know about the danger.

I'm having trouble making any sense out of your post.

 

[blutoski]

Recent article discussing The Authoritarian Personality:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21235.htm

"The authors also found a very high correlation between possessing a number of these traits and demonstrating a consistent and malignant prejudice against out-groups."

The major problem with associating skeptics with APT (aside from the fact that APT never really obtained widespread acceptance as part of a personality descriptor model) is that skeptics are pretty obviously characterized by the opposite: they tend to be outsiders drawn together by the experience of being rejected by their communities.

That's not a solid rule, of course - I'm talking about what I believe is statistically predictable about a sample of skeptics versus the regular population.

My anecdotal observations lead me to want to do proper surveys because I predict that the skeptical community should be distinguishable in many ways. Specifically a skeptic is more likely (not guaranteed) to have:

• anti-authoritarian attitude (1)
• enjoyment of thought puzzles
• interest in natural sciences
• insight into personal limitations vis a vis memory, perception

Also, I predict there is an increased incidence of strong opinionation or even OCPD within skepticism than within the general population. But this is also probably true for membership in political parties and many other nonprofit groups, so while it's more common in skepticism than in the overall population, it's probably not more common than other self-identified 'movements'.

(1) (my pet peeve in skepticism is the widespread rejection of all appeals to authority, in my opinion it is both unjustified and counterproductive)

 

[Richard Masters]

Parapsychology?

What does Parapsychology have to do with Psychology?

While some points in the original article do have a basis in Psychology, we are still talking about statistical methods.

If you say "people are bound to have a blind spot", therefore "James Randi is bound to have a blind spot", that is likely to be accurate.

But you can't stretch the original premise to assert that "James Randi is wrong".

And if you say that "James Randi is likely to be wrong" you are still ignoring (1) his base rate (for example, thus far, he has been shown to be correct when debunking the paranormal), and (2) the fact that having a blind spot is not terminal - One can systematically identify blind spots; James Randi is exemplary.

Additionally, Psychologists don't want to be associated with Parapsychology. It's hard enough to establish credibility in a complex (statistical) field when you've got scamsters like "The Secret" crowd borrowing and twisting bits of Psychology, but inventing New Age explanations to create modern cults and religions.

It's hard enough throwing away old Psychology such as Freudian psychoanalysis and certain misleading myths such as "we only use 10% of our brains", so if you are a Parapsychologist, you better make a really good case, or you are going to be discarded faster than these old myths.

 

[blutoski]

What does Parapsychology have to do with Psychology?

While some points in the original article do have a basis in Psychology, we are still talking about statistical methods.

If you say "people are bound to have a blind spot", therefore "James Randi is bound to have a blind spot", that is likely to be accurate.

But you can't stretch the original premise to assert that "James Randi is wrong".

And if you say that "James Randi is likely to be wrong" you are still ignoring (1) his base rate (for example, thus far, he has been shown to be correct when debunking the paranormal), and (2) the fact that having a blind spot is not terminal - One can systematically identify blind spots; James Randi is exemplary.

Additionally, Psychologists don't want to be associated with Parapsychology. It's hard enough to establish credibility in a complex (statistical) field when you've got scamsters like "The Secret" crowd borrowing and twisting bits of Psychology, but inventing New Age explanations to create modern cults and religions.

It's hard enough throwing away old Psychology such as Freudian psychoanalysis and certain misleading myths such as "we only use 10% of our brains", so if you are a Parapsychologist, you better make a really good case, or you are going to be discarded faster than these old myths.

My impression was that the opening post was an attempt to explain why skeptics are not accepting evidence that psi advocates consider very convincing - there must be something wrong with the skeptics' minds.

I don't think the argument was being used to actually support the argument that psi exists - I felt that was a 'given'... a hidden premise in the stated argument that skeptics have mental problems.

 

[blutoski]

What does Parapsychology have to do with Psychology?

Also: my personal opinion is that parapsychology is entirely psychology. Everything from perception to cognition.

I also think that a claim that states that there might be differences in the personalities between skeptics and believers is probably true - but that's a circular argument, and doesn't tell you whether one, both, or neither group is mentally unhealthy.

A poster submitted information about Authoritative Personality Type earlier. Ignoring the questionable validity of this personality model, it's important to observe that the poster seems to have completely missed the tragic fact that so many psi believers are classic APT. Think: Scientology, Heaven's Gate. Arguably, members of Sylvia Browne's cult Novus are boiler-plate APT. All those guys in the military who were sincerely developing weaponized psi applications in the 1970s and 1980s - APT straight from a WWII gestapo role casting call.

So, while psychology is unable to tell us whether psi is real or not, it will help us interpret the behavior of both individual participants and also help us understand its perennial mass appeal. One outcome of this would be to develop credible strategies for working with the real human psychologies involved instead of a Quixotic railing against these widespread beliefs with our ideology that truth conquers simply by being available.

 

[JihadJane]

And you're calling skeptics 'infantile'?

No.

When someone believes in something as ludicrous as, say, that vaccines cause autism, something that was publicly disproved years ago, or something as blatantly ridiculous as the 2012 nonsense, can you understand why others would us patronizing language? In situations like those it is very difficult for me to believe that the believer is being honest.

What makes you believe that believers are being dishonest rather than simply seeing things differently?

Most of us hold ludicrous beliefs. What, for instance, isn't ridiculous about supporting an economic system based on usury and perpetual growth?

skeptics ... tend to be outsiders drawn together by the experience of being rejected by their communities.

Rejecting a powerful authority can create a strong, even evangelical desire for different kind of certainty.

A poster submitted information about Authoritative Personality Type earlier. Ignoring the questionable validity of this personality model, it's important to observe that the poster seems to have completely missed the tragic fact that so many psi believers are classic APT. Think: Scientology, Heaven's Gate. Arguably, members of Sylvia Browne's cult Novus are boiler-plate APT. All those guys in the military who were sincerely developing weaponized psi applications in the 1970s and 1980s - APT straight from a WWII gestapo role casting call.

I haven't missed "the tragic fact" at all. I think the two schools ( pro and anti) are joined at the hip. Suspicious people are often gullible. Gullible people are often suspicious.

Wondering whether there is a generalised "Skeptic" psychology has nothing to do the the credibility or otherwise of "psi believers". What draws skeptics to focus of certain areas of belief while ignoring other, equally ludicrous ones?

From another thread:

yes. I mean, the fight against wonder healers and other charlatans is very good and imprtant, i fear the impact is very small. But atleast they try it.
But when it comes to scandals of the pharma or non organic farms, that seems to be no issue here, handwaving like, no system is perfect. etc.

So, while psychology is unable to tell us whether psi is real or not, it will help us interpret the behavior of both individual participants and also help us understand its perennial mass appeal. One outcome of this would be to develop credible strategies for working with the real human psychologies involved instead of a Quixotic railing against these widespread beliefs with our ideology that truth conquers simply by being available.

Are Skeptics (with a capital 'S') missionaries?