SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[fls]

What standardized definition of 'hostile' do you apply in order to make that assessment?

Linda

The one in my head. It matches fairly well with the one in the dictionary.

For example, when assessing health outcomes, a standardized definition of 'improvement' will be formed, such as 'decrease of 2 points on a Visual Analog Pain Scale' (I wouldn't expect yours to be as specific). Using 'improvement as defined in the dictionary' raises no barriers to simply allowing one's biases to fit the available information to whatever pre-conceived notion one wishes to support. You can see this with studies of CAM therapies like homeopathy, where any symptomatic outcomes - reduction of symptoms, increase in symptoms or no change is symptoms - is taken as a sign of 'improvement'. It's not a particularly useful technique, since it ends up being no different from someone simply stating "these are my pre-conceived notions", even though it is dressed up as somehow being based on data. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm just asking you how you went about avoiding that when you assessed that the degree of hostility you encountered from skeptics was excessive.

I think you've already stated that your standardized definition of 'skeptic' is 'anyone who self-identifies as a skeptic'?

Linda

 

[Beth]

Linda,

I'm just stating my opinion based on my observations. I'm not making a factual claim, complete with standarized definitions on which I have based rigorous data collection and analysis subject to scientific scrutiny. I readily acknowledge I might be mistaken. If you choose to believe that I, and every other person who has indicated the same are mistaken, biased, or that I don't know what hostile is or skeptic means, that's fine.

 

[fls]

Linda,

I'm just stating my opinion based on my observations. I'm not making a factual claim, complete with standarized definitions on which I have based rigorous data collection and analysis subject to scientific scrutiny. I readily acknowledge I might be mistaken. If you choose to believe that I, and every other person who has indicated the same are mistaken, biased, or that I don't know what hostile is or skeptic means, that's fine.

As far as I can tell, the people involved in this thread have an understanding of what these various terms mean in common use. That's not the issue. It has been raised several times in this thread, by Ersby and others, and it is a standard part of research methodology, to recognize that you will capture different populations depending upon your selection criteria. As has already been pointed out, the authors of the various articles claiming that skeptics are hostile, either didn't specify their selection criteria or specifically selected a group of skeptics with a particular characteristic unrelated to skepticism, and then proceeded to identify behaviours present in both parapsychologists and skeptics, but attributed those behaviours to hostility in one group and to more noble motivations in the other. This indicates that their opinion is not based on observation, but rather their opinion was already formed and they simply took the observations as confirming their opinions, regardless of what was contained in those observations.

I'm not asking you for rigorously collected data. I'm asking you what sort of steps you took to avoid those same errors when forming your opinion. Otherwise, all that can be concluded is that it is possible to identify a group of people who see skeptics as hostile. It gives us no indication as to whether or not there actually is an excess of hostility among skeptics, let alone whether or not anyone can draw conclusions about the assessment of evidence in the presence of hostility. As we know from considering the effects research design will have on the results, it is quite easy to get 'results' that confirm pretty much any conclusion if free rein is given to our cognitive biases.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Otherwise, all that can be concluded is that it is possible to identify a group of people who see skeptics as hostile. It gives us no indication as to whether or not there actually is an excess of hostility among skeptics, let alone whether or not anyone can draw conclusions about the assessment of evidence in the presence of hostility.
Linda

That's correct. It's an inherent limitation of personal observations and opinions. We can't draw firm conclusions. We can only use such information for speculation and, if sufficiently interested, to give direction to actual research. All we can do at this point it to try to assess the consistency of opinions from among people who don't appear to share the same biases and decide if it matches our own observations. That's one of the reasons I was asking for other people's opinions earlier in this thread. I find it interesting because it seems to be a fairly common complaint and it matches my own personal observations.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Thanks, Ersby.
It seems that Langmuir's and Medawar's reports agree that Rhine felt that people hostile to him were producing negative results that had to be suppressed.

 

[fls]

That's correct. It's an inherent limitation of personal observations and opinions. We can't draw firm conclusions. We can only use such information for speculation and, if sufficiently interested, to give direction to actual research. All we can do at this point it to try to assess the consistency of opinions from among people who don't appear to share the same biases and decide if it matches our own observations. That's one of the reasons I was asking for other people's opinions earlier in this thread. I find it interesting because it seems to be a fairly common complaint and it matches my own personal observations.

From the answers you received to your question (and other discussion on this thread) it's fairly clear that those people who don't share your biases also don't share your opinion. This isn't a surprise as it's hardly a novel insight. In the end it seems that this thread is more about the psychology of the believer than the skeptic. Not that my advice will be taken )), but I suspect that those professionals who Limbo and others have referenced would be better served by trying to understand why they see skeptics as hostile.

What is of interest to me about this topic is, should skeptics care about whether they are seen as hostile and is it possible to prevent that perception if it is undesirable? I am generally of the opinion that the perception of hostility prevents someone from hearing your message, it merely reinforces our defenses against cognitive dissonance. But I've come across many examples where that is not the case, so I'm not ready to rule out the possibility that it isn't useful to be seen as at least somewhat hostile. The idea that you will be met with hostility unless you come prepared with evidence is at the backbone of the scientific process, after all. So the first issue raised by the OP, "skeptics are hostile" shouldn't be assumed to be a negative characterization - it may be something that should be embraced.

It's more clear to me that it isn't possible to prevent believers, professional or otherwise, from seeing hostility if that's what they are determined to see. So I'm not sure that endless threads about how various high or low profile skeptics ought to behave serves any particular purpose without evidence that a change in behaviour would lead to a change in perception.

Linda

 

[Beth]

From the answers you received to your question (and other discussion on this thread) it's fairly clear that those people who don't share your biases also don't share your opinion.

No, actually, it's not. There's a tendancy by skeptics here to lump people who complain about hostility all together as sharing the same biases, but it's not at all clear to me that they do. Do you think it reasonable to assume that parapsychologists, Christians, Homeopaths and Conspiracy theorists automatically share the same biases? I don't.

This isn't a surprise as it's hardly a novel insight. In the end it seems that this thread is more about the psychology of the believer than the skeptic.

Do you really think so? I think there's been rather little comment either about believers (other than the author of the OP) or by believers in this thread.

Not that my advice will be taken )), but I suspect that those professionals who Limbo and others have referenced would be better served by trying to understand why they see skeptics as hostile.

Well, that would be a starting point. It would require defining hostile behavior, collecting data, etc. I doubt that will happen. I'm certainly not interested enough to do that sort of work. I have found some of the research referenced of interest, but I haven't seen any actual research on that point.

What is of interest to me about this topic is, should skeptics care about whether they are seen as hostile and is it possible to prevent that perception if it is undesirable?

That's been discussed a great deal in the past. Various skeptics hold opinions on both sides of that issue. You can do a search of past threads if your interested enough.

I am generally of the opinion that the perception of hostility prevents someone from hearing your message, it merely reinforces our defenses against cognitive dissonance. But I've come across many examples where that is not the case, so I'm not ready to rule out the possibility that it isn't useful to be seen as at least somewhat hostile. The idea that you will be met with hostility unless you come prepared with evidence is at the backbone of the scientific process, after all. So the first issue raised by the OP, "skeptics are hostile" shouldn't be assumed to be a negative characterization - it may be something that should be embraced.

It's more clear to me that it isn't possible to prevent believers, professional or otherwise, from seeing hostility if that's what they are determined to see.

True enough, but I don't share your perception that the issue is solely due to what believers are "determined" to see.
[/quote]
So I'm not sure that endless threads about how various high or low profile skeptics ought to behave serves any particular purpose without evidence that a change in behaviour would lead to a change in perception.

Linda[/QUOTE] Same purpose all other threads serve - our own amusement and edification of how others subjectively percieve the same objective objects we do.

 

[tyr_13]

If people honestly believe that skeptics are more hostile than the average internet forum poster, I challenge them to go to a Mac fan forum, or a Nintendo fan forum, and post a valid, well thought out criticism of either of those companies or their products.

Better still are the psychic hangouts. Post a reasoned, polite criticism of them. If you don't see your post deletion as hostile, what would you call it?

 

[Limbo]

Linda your last few posts look like the desperate gambits of a clever defense lawyer with a guilty client and nothing to lose.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Not to me, but then you probably could rationalize that. As Linda said, "It's more clear to me that it isn't possible to prevent believers, professional or otherwise, from seeing hostility if that's what they are determined to see."
See, for example Rhine, whining "Nobody likes me" and using that as an excuse for fudging data.
Cheating.
As a trained scientist, he should have known that locking up all the negative results in a bunch of file drawers was not kosher. Either that, or he was so blinded by his own theory (Miss Ann Elk) that he was a tad demented.
You choose.

 

[tyr_13]

Linda your last few posts look like the desperate gambits of a clever defense lawyer with a guilty client and nothing to lose.

It is looks like you've stopped having even the semblance of a valid argument and are simply making silly comments, attacking the well thought out and measured nature of Linda's posts.

So are you being hostile towards Linda, or lawyers?

 

[blutoski]

If people honestly believe that skeptics are more hostile than the average internet forum poster, I challenge them to go to a Mac fan forum, or a Nintendo fan forum, and post a valid, well thought out criticism of either of those companies or their products.

Better still are the psychic hangouts. Post a reasoned, polite criticism of them. If you don't see your post deletion as hostile, what would you call it?

And you don't even need to limit the scope to a tu coque between skeptics and believers. My counterthesis to the original essay is that the person is somehow observing a human property in everybody, but somehow thinking it's special to skeptics. I'm with Linda thinking that it's confirmation seeking behavior that leads to this conclusion, although it could be selective memory.

I'm not claiming that I 'get out more' or anything, but aggressive defensiveness is so common in every social gathering that I can't imagine anybody being aghast to see it in skeptics like they've never seen defensiveness before.

It's both a personality property, and also a situation property relating to anything from a person's investment (a key factor in cognitive dissonance) to the perception of being gunnysacked or ambushed. Some people display it more often than others, but it takes an exceptional person not to display it when deliberately provoked.

My personality leads me to find a quiet spot away from the foofaraw, as most of the time I can't imagine why anybody would care. Just today for example, it was at the gym: apparently "the three-rep method is the only way to work out," (as opposed to sets of, say, 3 x 15) and the discussion almost came to blows. But I'm not comfortable generalizing and saying that three-reppers are a hostile lot.

Shoot: I'm in Canada. I'm often flabberghasted: why do people even have opinions about beer, much less be willing to fight about it?

 

[tyr_13]

Shoot: I'm in Canada. I'm often flabberghasted: why do people even have opinions about beer, much less be willing to fight about it?

Don't ever mention that you hate the taste of beer while in Canada. Just...do...not...do...it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It's like sex in a canoe, eh?

 

[tyr_13]

It's like sex in a canoe, eh?

Standing up. With the canoe on the car rack going down the 90.

 

[Beth]

If people honestly believe that skeptics are more hostile than the average internet forum poster, I challenge them to go to a Mac fan forum, or a Nintendo fan forum, and post a valid, well thought out criticism of either of those companies or their products.

I did mention that criticism make EVERYBODY hostile. Reaction to criticism isn't what I or the OP was discussing. However, I'm more than willing to grant your thesis that there are other areas that are equally hostile. That doesn't mean that either skeptics or those other groups are typical in regards to that trait. It would only mean that skeptics are not the only group with that trait.

And you don't even need to limit the scope to a tu coque between skeptics and believers. My counterthesis to the original essay is that the person is somehow observing a human property in everybody, but somehow thinking it's special to skeptics. I'm with Linda thinking that it's confirmation seeking behavior that leads to this conclusion, although it could be selective memory.

I'm not claiming that I 'get out more' or anything, but aggressive defensiveness is so common in every social gathering that I can't imagine anybody being aghast to see it in skeptics like they've never seen defensiveness before.

I'm not aghast to see it. I've just been puzzled by it ever since I started posting here. I think I may have developed a reasonable theory though. Skeptics seem to have larger than average percentages of the following groups:

a) Males (approx. 70% according to one of the papers posted in this thread)
b) Atheists (my own observation, not documented, so this is disputable)
c) Nerds (again my own observation, using my own definition, so this is also disputable)

BTW, I don't dislike any of these groups (I was a nerd way back when it NOT considered a good thing to be!), nor do I dislike skeptics. In general I find them to be intelligent, thoughtful and interesting people. But I also think they are more hostile to others than the average of other groups I've interacted with.

Now consider that males are more aggressive than average. Atheists, in the only study that I'm aware of that focused on them, were found to be less happy and more angry than the average individual (also more intelligent BTW). Nerds are defined as much by their lack of social skills as by their interest in science and technology.

So, if we postulate a population that's more aggressive, less happy, more angry and with worse social skills than average, well - hostile is one way that group might be percieved by others they interact with.

 

[tyr_13]

Aggressive does not equal hostile. I think it is important to note that one can read a lot based on the 'tone' they give to the words they are reading.

Give this post a condescending or angry tone, it comes off as hostile.

Read it as though Mr. Data was saying it, not so much. I often use the Data test when I get upset with what someone has posted.

 

[fls]

No, actually, it's not. There's a tendancy by skeptics here to lump people who complain about hostility all together as sharing the same biases, but it's not at all clear to me that they do. Do you think it reasonable to assume that parapsychologists, Christians, Homeopaths and Conspiracy theorists automatically share the same biases? I don't.

Where did that come from? I mentioned that people that don't share your bias also don't share your opinion.

Do you really think so? I think there's been rather little comment either about believers (other than the author of the OP) or by believers in this thread.

The articles which have been presented in this thread that claim skeptics are hostile have been by believers.

Well, that would be a starting point. It would require defining hostile behavior, collecting data, etc. I doubt that will happen. I'm certainly not interested enough to do that sort of work. I have found some of the research referenced of interest, but I haven't seen any actual research on that point.

When I mention something that is of interest to me, you are not under any particular obligation to also find it interesting. Your disclaimer wasn't necessary.

That's been discussed a great deal in the past. Various skeptics hold opinions on both sides of that issue. You can do a search of past threads if your interested enough.

I didn't intend to give you the impression that I was unfamiliar with discussion on this subject.

True enough, but I don't share your perception that the issue is solely due to what believers are "determined" to see.

I wouldn't expect you to.

So I'm not sure that endless threads about how various high or low profile skeptics ought to behave serves any particular purpose without evidence that a change in behaviour would lead to a change in perception.

Linda

Same purpose all other threads serve - our own amusement and edification of how others subjectively percieve the same objective objects we do.

I wasn't querying the point behind endless discussions (I think anyone who chooses to spend time here derives that particular pleasure from the process), but rather why they tend to lack that critical component.

Linda

 

[fls]

Linda your last few posts look like the desperate gambits of a clever defense lawyer with a guilty client and nothing to lose.

Well, if one assumes that you're being serious and not just a smart ass, one can look at this thread and see that the believer refuses to engage in any discussion of her/his ideas and calls people names or insults them, yet insists that 'hostile' is a word best reserved for others.

At this point, all I have to say is, "I rest my case."

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

. Atheists, in the only study that I'm aware of that focused on them, were found to be less happy and more angry than the average individual (also more intelligent BTW). .

You have a study? Cool, lets see it.