SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Beth]

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.

I agree. Did it make you feel angry, threatened or defensive about being a skeptic?

What I find fascinating is that if the arguments go the other way, if a skeptics phrasing seems to imply a 'given' that psi doesn't exist, and a hidden premise that those words indicate that believers have mental problems, objecting to those premises is treated far differently depending on the forum you are posting on.

 

[Limbo]

Did it make you feel angry, threatened or defensive about being a skeptic?

That's not the kind of question that angry, threatened or defensive people will answer honestly, is it?

 

[fls]

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.

I'm not sure that the evidence is considered convincing as much as it is not as unconvincing as skeptics make out? After all, belief in psi seems to be based on our tendency to have confidence in our personal experiences, rather than something that one comes to through evidence (as opposed to our belief in black holes, for example). So it's more a matter of arguing someone out of having confidence in their personal experiences. Skeptics are already...well...skeptical about their personal experiences.

I agree. Did it make you feel angry, threatened or defensive about being a skeptic?

If you are telling us that believers feel that way when faced with hidden assumptions that psi doesn't exist, then a lack of those responses from skeptics may be the problem. If it doesn't make us feel angry, threatened or defensive, it may not occur to us that believers may legitimately feel that way when the tables are turned. When the negative characterization is directed at me, my first reaction is to think that the issue can sincerely be discussed and analyzed. Yet that rarely seems to be the response I get in return.

What I find fascinating is that if the arguments go the other way, if a skeptics phrasing seems to imply a 'given' that psi doesn't exist, and a hidden premise that those words indicate that believers have mental problems, objecting to those premises is treated far differently depending on the forum you are posting on.

I suspect that you are right. An emotional reaction isn't always anticipated.

That's not the kind of question that angry, threatened or defensive people will answer honestly, is it?

It may be that the truest answer to that question comes from what we project on to others. Your insistence that we are angry, threatened or defensive may be because any other response feels foreign to you? What we need here is something that breaks the symmetry - what you see in the mirror is not governed by the same laws that govern you.

Linda

 

[JihadJane]

Your insistence that we are angry, threatened or defensive may be because any other response feels foreign to you?
Linda

Is there a Skeptic group mindfeel, a group "we"?

Is it really us and them?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Is there a Skeptic group mindfeel, a group "we"?

Is it really us and them?

English syntax and grammar essentially require the use of the word "we" in that sentence. It's the nominative plural of "I."

You're being evasive.

Incidentally, "mindfeel," is not a word. You may perhaps mean to say "groupthink," but even in that case you would be wrong in your implication.

 

[fls]

Is there a Skeptic group mindfeel, a group "we"?

Is it really us and them?

That's pretty cute.

I hope it was deliberate, even though I suspect it wasn't.

Linda

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's pretty cute.

I hope it was deliberate, even though I suspect it wasn't.

Linda

You are more charitable than I am.

 

[JihadJane]

You're being evasive.

Evasive of what?

That's pretty cute.

I hope it was deliberate, even though I suspect it wasn't.

Linda

Thanks. It was both.


Are you claiming to be able to know the emotional states of your fellow posters?

I understood you to be suggesting that "skeptics" don't get "angry, threatened or defensive" in the same way that "believers" do. How could you know this?

Or were you being purely hypothetical?

 

[Ersby]

The use of the term sceptic is still problematic, in my opinion. If we are talking about people who are sceptical of paranormal phenomena, then bringing in examples about global warming (as the opening post did) muddies the water. If you want to talk about scientific controversies in general, then the term “sceptic” becomes meaningless, since most people are sceptical of something.

I’ve been on pro-psi and pro-conspiracy-theory boards where people seemed to get very angry when their ideas are challenged. I’ve received ridicule and abuse, and seen mass bannings of “outsiders” (ie, people who didn’t follow the predominant view) so there are some people out there on the pro-psi/anti-establishment side who do seem frightened of debate.

And while I think this thread has been interesting, I think it suffers from ill-defined terms. If we’re talking about the psychology of people who are sceptical of the paranormal (a legitimate subject), then we should make efforts to stick to that quite strictly. Otherwise we’re talking about “the psychology of people who aren’t like me”, which is a bit futile.

 

[fls]

Are you claiming to be able to know the emotional states of your fellow posters?

I was wondering why Limbo was claiming to know this. Or you, for that matter.

I understood you to be suggesting that "skeptics" don't get "angry, threatened or defensive" in the same way that "believers" do.

Yes, it is clear that that was your understanding. Yet how you came to that understanding is a mystery to me.

How could you know this?

Exactly.

Or were you being purely hypothetical?

I didn't start out that way, but I guess I must be, since the question put to Limbo and you (and now Beth) remains unanswered after 5 pages.

Linda

 

[JihadJane]

I was wondering why Limbo was claiming to know this. Or you, for that matter.



Yes, it is clear that that was your understanding. Yet how you came to that understanding is a mystery to me.

It was this comment:

"Skeptics are already...well...skeptical about their personal experiences."

I don't see a lot of evidence of this on this forum.

Exactly.



I didn't start out that way, but I guess I must be, since the question put to Limbo and you (and now Beth) remains unanswered after 5 pages.

Linda

That's good. We are in almost total agreement.

 

[fls]

It was this comment:

"Skeptics are already...well...skeptical about their personal experiences."

I don't see a lot of evidence of this on this forum.

Exactly. And from my perspective evidence abounds.

That's good. We are in almost total agreement.

I do try to make it a habit of agreeing with whatever someone has to say.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I'm not sure that the evidence is considered convincing as much as it is not as unconvincing as skeptics make out?

That's my assessment. I don't consider the current evidence convincing. I just don't assign as low a probability to hypothesis that it exists as most skeptics posting here do.

If you are telling us that believers feel that way when faced with hidden assumptions that psi doesn't exist,

Many people do, yes.

then a lack of those responses from skeptics may be the problem.

I haven't noticed a lack of that type of response from skeptics myself. Not every skeptic feels that way in response to such implicit assumptions, but then not every believer does either. However, when it occurs, civil conversation can become difficult.

I didn't start out that way, but I guess I must be, since the question put to Limbo and you (and now Beth) remains unanswered after 5 pages.

Linda

What question are you referring to here? I'm sorry, but I'm unable to infer which question you have put to me you feel is unanswered.

 

[Moochie]

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.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. I was responding more to something going on in my head than this thread, specifically in relation to "things that go bump in the night," ie, all things woo, especially woo that may instill fear in the young and those likely to accept anecdotes as evidence.

I grew up in a family in which the parents had lived through the fascism of war-time Germany, a lot of which had been absorbed and used in the conduct of their own lives and child-rearing practices; ie, we were brought up to not question "authority," including and especially the authority of our parents. In that context, I had to fight to overcome fear.


M.

 

[fls]

I haven't noticed a lack of that type of response from skeptics myself.

And yet, I struggle to identify any post from a skeptic in this thread that can be classed as "angry". The closest thing I see to "angry" is coming from JihadJane, but that seems to be a rhetorical device. The most overwhelming response from the skeptics seems to be puzzlement.

Not every skeptic feels that way in response to such implicit assumptions, but then not every believer does either. However, when it occurs, civil conversation can become difficult.

But how is that relevant to this conversation?

What question are you referring to here? I'm sorry, but I'm unable to infer which question you have put to me you feel is unanswered.

How do you know that your perception of the psychology of the skeptic is valid and reliable?

Linda

 

[Beth]

And yet, I struggle to identify any post from a skeptic in this thread that can be classed as "angry". The closest thing I see to "angry" is coming from JihadJane, but that seems to be a rhetorical device. The most overwhelming response from the skeptics seems to be puzzlement.

I was thinking of the more general situation of conversing with someone who conveys an implicit assumption that if you don't agree with their belief on the subject of psi, your mental health is suspect in their opinion and asked, since that had been identified as an issue by a particular poster, if that was how it had made that person feel.

But how is that relevant to this conversation?

You indicated you did not feel that way. I was pointing out that just because you didn't have that reaction, it's not safe to assume that no else did. Likewise, it's not a good assumption that all believers have that reaction. It's simply, in my observation, a rather common reaction to that particular type of assumption regardless of who has made the assumption and who is reacting to it.

How do you know that your perception of the psychology of the skeptic is valid and reliable?

Linda

I don't know that. I can only check my perceptions the same way I check my perceptions of anything else, by considering the sample I have access to (How much experience with individuals from that group have I had? Are those I interact with representative of the larger population?) and by comparing my perceptions with the perceptions of others. Depending on the answers to those questions, I decide how much validity to assign to my perceptions and form an opinion based both on those perceptions and the comments of others.

In this case, you might note that I haven't been making claims regarding the psychology of the skeptic, but posting about my perceptions. The reactions to my posts provide feedback that continues to shape my opinion on the matter.

 

[fls]

You indicated you did not feel that way. I was pointing out that just because you didn't have that reaction, it's not safe to assume that no else did. Likewise, it's not a good assumption that all believers have that reaction. It's simply, in my observation, a rather common reaction to that particular type of assumption regardless of who has made the assumption and who is reacting to it.

Yes, that's my point. People behave in various ways and there's no particular reason to think that skeptics or believers are any different in that regard. That I didn't have that reaction doesn't mean that I assume that no one else did. It means that I assume others may not as well, regardless of whether they're a believer or not.

So how does any of this relate to the idea raised in this thread that it is the mindset of the skeptic that accounts for the unfair dismissal the strength of the evidence for psi?

Linda

 

[Beth]

So how does any of this relate to the idea raised in this thread that it is the mindset of the skeptic that accounts for the unfair dismissal the strength of the evidence for psi?

Linda

If the dismissal of evidence is believed to been unfair, it's reasonable to conclude that the dismissal is due to the mindset of the person rather than the evidence and natural to explore what mindsets are causing people to dismiss evidence without sufficient cause. Skeptics do it all the time on this forum when conjecturing about why some people believe the things they do.

 

[godless dave]

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

Because to believe those things they have to deliberately ignore facts.

Most of us hold ludicrous beliefs.

Speak for yourself.

What, for instance, isn't ridiculous about supporting an economic system based on usury and perpetual growth?

You've confused a belief with an action.

 

[fls]

If the dismissal of evidence is believed to been unfair, it's reasonable to conclude that the dismissal is due to the mindset of the person rather than the evidence and natural to explore what mindsets are causing people to dismiss evidence without sufficient cause. Skeptics do it all the time on this forum when conjecturing about why some people believe the things they do.

I'm just disappointed that addressing these points (is the dismissal of evidence unfair? if so, could it be due to mindset? what is the mindset? is that sufficient to explain the dismissal?) with "he was mean to me" stories is considered reasonable.

Linda