Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[SirPhilip]

I guess that you are completely unaware of the causes of impoverishment of people in Africa - and don't really care.

I only disagree that throwing large scale rebuilding into these countries, which have nonexistent cultural and social stability, will come to naut. Water has to seek it's own level. Consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, how religiosity defines economic, social norms, law and education..

 

[SirPhilip]

No, Claus, I was actually labeling him as a dick. And you too. As far as I know those aren't terms of mental illness. Moreover, it's terms that other people have been trying to clue you in on... but you don't hear and so you can't fix your dickishness. tsk. You consider yourself the JREF vigilante.

And this post is because you decided to bring up your feelings about my comments on this thread totally out of the blue on a separate thread! I consider that rude, derailing, and an invitation for me to share my opinions about you as freely as you share your opinions about me. Reciprocity. Quit dishing out such ire, if you don't like when it comes back and bites you in the ass. And guess what? I've had fantastic responses. I am not alone in my feelings about this.



You can't debate people who never make a point... who ask vague and stupid questions they don't want an answer too--questions designed to infer that they have some moral superiority that no one else thinks they have. For example... no one considers those who think that "skeptics should grow up" as decent examples of what "skeptics should grow up to be". We don't take the advice of self-professed "mature skeptics". No on else thinks such people are more grown up than those who disagree with Dann's ridiculous, hyperbolic, meandering logical fallacy.

It's the most immature people who are calling others immature. It's amazing how you guys insult people ALL THE TIME... while imagining that you are these great diplomats and peacekeepers and speakers of the "little people" or whatever. But no one thinks you are speaking for them. Most can't even understand you--not even the people you think you are defending. Nobody knows your points or why you go off on your weird tangents or what your aiml is (other than to win?). I have no idea what your inane goals were accusing me of calling people mentally ill when I was actually pointing out that they're the kind of people that nobody really likes to have discussions with. I think you're pissed because you want to be able to lure ever more people into your egotistical mind games while trying to turn people against those who point out your hypocrisy. That's why you stalked me to another thread to have your tantrum in more than one place. But your attempts at making others dislike me has failed. You are revealed for what you are. It turns out a lot more people feel like I do than you have realized.

Yep. There are some people who make every discussion or conversation into a win/lose game or argument. And they can't fix it, because, like you, they are certain the problem is everybody else. It isn't, Claus. You don't get along well with most of the people here from what I can tell. Neither does Dann. You need to fix yourself before you worry about people like me. Put me on ignore and focus on your own communication deficits and nastiness. What you accuse people of is worse than "pugilistic discussion syndrome" believe it or not.



Because you did so by bringing it to another thread. I don't need to seek the approval of anyone. I appreciate the insight... clearly there is a communication problem going on... and if it's from me, I want to fix it. But I think you are the nutty one to accuse me of calling people mentally ill because I posted a link to "pugilistic discussion syndrome" from Wired magazine, and people recognized that some people on this forum are amazingly like the people purported to have such a syndrome. It is a joke. It's a way of saying some people are dicks and you can't fix it because they don't know they're the dicks. If I was out of line, I presumed someone I respect (not you) would tell me. Nobody did. They, instead, confirmed my point. The only ones that think I'm an awful person seem to be the people that... well... that I kind of like being an enemy of. None of the people I admire or think are smart (or coherent) think that. I take that as a sign, that I'm not the one who needs to change... or at least I don't have to worry about your snideness, advice, pedantry, judgment, or tangential nothingness.



Yes I do. But I suppose I did it for the exact same reasons CFLarson decided to stalk me and accuse me of calling others mentally ill. Clearly, you think others need to have that impression of me. So I gave them the details so they could check out the facts for themselves. I only vilify those who vilify me first. Check back a few posts. Everyone else seems to see the same facts a lot differently than you do. You can be such a hypocrite. You tell me not to vilify people-- while you went over to another thread to purposefully vilify me.

Don't you think those whose "support I seek" can decide for themselves whether I'm "condescending"? And don't you think that the non-blowhards have nothing to worry about if I call them a blow hard? I assure you, I"m not worried about all the negative things you call me

Once again for the slow... I can't tell if you or Dann agree or disagree with me because I can't find your point amidst the every galloping verbiage. I just understand that I'm involved in one of those Twilight Zone situations where the person I'm talking to is having an entirely different conversation than everyone else-- he's playing an imaginary game to win. Multiple people tell you as much, Claus... but nothing anyone says works. So why not let us competent folks have a laugh at the expense of the "self appointed" experts. If the mockery doesn't apply to you-- does it matter? None of the much worse things you've said about me matter to me at all... and that goes triple for Dann. I think your guys are really mad, because you knew that readers would figure out exactly whom those are that have "pugilistic discussion syndrome", and your names would be at the top of the list. But that's just are hunch, of course.

I'm quite certain that you can find my most abrasive statement to anyone--and I will find you a more abrasive statement said by that person to me first. I hear that "tit for tat" is an excellent method for stopping the behavior of blowhards--and if nothing else, I find it fun to fight back. What comes around goes around, Claus. Reciprocity. If you want me to "shut up"-- try enacting that policy on yourself first. Before casting the first stone, you better check yourself. And in case you forget, you better just put me on ignore.

This is why I'm never getting married.

 

[dann]

This is why I'm never getting married.

Good one, Phil, but I hope that you're not implying that this is a love-hate relationship!
(Do you have to ask a moderator to remove articulett's derailing?)

 

[dann]

I only disagree that throwing large scale rebuilding into these countries, which have nonexistent cultural and social stability, will come to naut. Water has to seek it's own level. Consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, how religiosity defines economic, social norms, law and education..

The role of oil in the global market economy, not religion, determines economics in the countries you mention, which is why they are very different in this respect from the African countries mentioned so far in this thread.

 

[dann]

I'm quite certain that you can find my most abrasive statement to anyone--and I will find you a more abrasive statement said by that person to me first. I hear that "tit for tat" is an excellent method for stopping the behavior of blowhards--and if nothing else, I find it fun to fight back. What comes around goes around, Claus. Reciprocity. If you want me to "shut up"-- try enacting that policy on yourself first. Before casting the first stone, you better check yourself. And in case you forget, you better just put me on ignore.

Claus, instead of complaining about articulett's attempts at applying pseudo-psychoanalytical terms to her opponents, you should rather study the kind of psychology at play here.

From the very beginning she assumed the role of gallant knight coming to Randi's rescue, and now she has progressed to being the imaginary leader of an anonymous group of people, who are all behind her but for some weird reason just don't seem to appear in real life. The people in this thread who have openly criticized her are reduced to you, me and Gurdur.
She no longer sticks to the theme of thread but apparently feels that it is completely justified when she presents nothing but ad homs, convinced as she is that people who oppose her deserve whatever punishment she can administer. No wonder she comes off looking like Karen Boesen.

KOHLBERG’S LEVELS
Lawrence Kohlberg theorized that humans grow morally as well as physically and that they pass through three major stages in this growth. At each stage, the person will decide what is ethically and morally sound based on a perspective determined by being in a particular stage. People in the lower levels of the first and lowest stage of development (Pre-Conventional) tend to believe that “might makes right.” Consequently they base right and wrong on the likelihood of being punished and the potential severity of the punishment. People who have progressed to a slightly higher level, but who are still in this stage base their decisions more on a sense of reciprocity: “Pat my back and I’ll pat yours”.
http://isedj.org/isecon/2006/3332/ISECON.2006.Slauson.txt

From these results, Chermack, Berman, and Taylor (1997) suggested that factors other than emotions might be taken into account as one of the primary determinants of aggression: “… a perceived intentionality and controllability of incitive acts, norms of reciprocity or motivational states (intention to harm), may play a more central role in accounting for the relationship between provocation and aggression” (p. 8).
http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/839/1/DiFrancisco_Maria.pdf

 

[dann]

Since I’ve referred to Denmark as the happiest country in the world a couple of times in this thread, I feel obliged to tell you exactly how we obtained this status:

Hvor danskerne i 2000 brugte 35 dagsdoser antidepressive piller per 1000 voksne, var tallet i 2005 vokset til 60. Dermed er Danmark det OECD-land, der har opnået den største vækst i forbruget af lykkepiller fra 2000 til 2005. (December 9, 2007) http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2007/12/09/165825.htm?rss=true

In my translation:
”In 2000 the Danes consumed 35 daily doses of anti-depressives for every 1.000 adults, the number grew to 60 in 2005. This means that Denmark was the OECD country with the highest growth in the consumption of SSRI medicine from 2000 to 2005.”

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, instead of complaining about articulett's attempts at applying pseudo-psychoanalytical terms to her opponents, you should rather study the kind of psychology at play here.

From the very beginning she assumed the role of gallant knight coming to Randi's rescue, and now she has progressed to being the imaginary leader of an anonymous group of people, who are all behind her but for some weird reason just don't seem to appear in real life. The people in this thread who have openly criticized her are reduced to you, me and Gurdur.
She no longer sticks to the theme of thread but apparently feels that it is completely justified when she presents nothing but ad homs, convinced as she is that people who oppose her deserve whatever punishment she can administer. No wonder she comes off looking like Karen Boesen.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. If people don't agree with her, or even dare to criticize her, they are not just bad people. They are bad skeptics.

It's a personalization of skepticism that is very destructive: Your skepticism is determined by how well someone likes you - not by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

 

[dann]

"Du bekamst für mich das Rätselhafte, das alle Tyrannen haben, deren Recht auf ihrer Person, nicht auf dem Denken begründet ist." F. Kafka

 

[dann]

What is your definition of "poverty"?

Poverty.

 

[dann]

Poverty is not only the root of superstition:

Poverty Causes Disease

 

[dann]

The micro-loan example was one example. It wasn't meant as the only solution to poverty among women. It has, however, been especially beneficial for women who turn out to be more reliable paying it back as well.

I was recently made aware of this article about Debt Relief in Third World countries.

 

[dann]

From the newsletter this week:
“Pavel's passion is to push back against the onslaught of paranormalism that has taken over since the fall of communism by initiating a skeptical movement on his campus.” http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/212/27/#i10

I don't know why nobody seems to be interested in this particular 'correlation'!

 

[dann]

Science 3 October 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5898, pp. 115 - 117
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845

Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception
Jennifer A. Whitson1* and Adam D. Galinsky2

We present six experiments that tested whether lacking control increases illusory pattern perception, which we define as the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli. Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions. Additionally, we demonstrated that increased pattern perception has a motivational basis by measuring the need for structure directly and showing that the causal link between lack of control and illusory pattern perception is reduced by affirming the self. Although these many disparate forms of pattern perception are typically discussed as separate phenomena, the current results suggest that there is a common motive underlying them.
1 Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2 Department of Management and Organizations, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

In this week’s newsletter there is an interesting quotation from a reader, Sandra L. Hubscher, who has read an article in The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30, with the title, “In Congo, superstitions breed homeless children”.
Sandra writes:
“It appears that as poverty has been increasingly plaguing this nation, children are being turned out of home after being accused of witchcraft. Javier Aguilar, a UNICEF child protection officer, states that of the 20,000 street children in the city of Kinshasa, 70% of them have been accused of being witches. The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic. Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense. We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted.”

To this James Randi adds that he not only agrees, but “I agree enthusiastically”.
The newsletter in question.

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”
If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!
“Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense.”

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!) And I find it truly amazing that skeptics seem to think that the victims of this calamity are not simply the starving children, but primarily the sentiments of skeptics who cannot stand to ”see truth and logic being assaulted.” Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

The writer Steve Kowit already pointed out the truth about the relationship between poverty and superstition in his article in Skeptic, Vol. 11, Number 1, 2004, The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa. A Study in Collective Self-Deception.
Scandinavians can read a translation of the article here:
Xhosaernes masseselvmord. Et studie I kollektivt selvbedrag

Merry Christmas!

Excellent post.

 

[dann]

Fair is fair: In the meantime I have seen James Randi newsletters where he reveals a noticeable awareness of the effect that miserable conditions of life may have on people's need to believe. Randi is definitely not a Marxist, but I think that he could at least be described as a compassionate skeptic - for lack of a better word - unlike the smart alecks we sometimes meet in this forum who seem to be so impressed by their own ability to look through the childish delusions of others that they imagine themselves to be intellectually superior to any and all believers.