SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Beth]

You have a study? Cool, lets see it.

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Grou...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228480715&sr=1-1

 

[fls]

I'm not aghast to see it. I've just been puzzled by it ever since I started posting here.

Wouldn't it be pretty much what you'd expect, though? Under what circumstances do you get the opportunity to consider people hostile? You need disagreement and the closer the area of disagreement comes to your core beliefs, the greater your reaction will be to it. You need a situation where people will actually let you know that they disagree; overcoming our social training designed to avoid confrontation. You need a set-up where you see 'them' as a specific group so that interaction with one of them is seem as an interaction with all. And you need lots of individual interactions to increase the absolute number seen as hostile. If you were going to design a place where you were most likely to see the members as hostile, an online forum dedicated to challenging and denying some of your core beliefs, where members are encouraged to speak out and defend their position, composed of a group that you do not identify with, that is one of the busiest forums around and which you actively participate in, is going to be just that. You should have been surprised and puzzled if you did not consider the people here hostile. That you are still here suggests that you actually encountered less hostility than expected - that males, atheists and nerds actually turned out to be a less hostile group than the converse.

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.

Some of this seems to be simply substituting stereotypes for data.

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.

Luckily, you are female, not atheist and no longer a nerd, so no one will perceive that comment as hostile.

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer.
Since there seem to be no studies available to check, this is from a review in About.com.atheists /agnostics:
So, what are atheists like? The authors find that atheists place a high value on the truth, tend to favor letting their children reach their own conclusions on religious matters, are more dogmatic than expected, are less zealous than expected from the dogmatism numbers, score rather low when it comes to authoritarian beliefs or attitudes, and are much less prejudiced (in terms of religion, race, and other topics) than religious believers. Indeed, atheists show less racial prejudice than even agnostics and very liberal religious believers.

 

[fls]

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).

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Grou...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228480715&sr=1-1

There are numerous studies on atheists. Try this one:

http://people.bu.edu/charris/AthChrisBuddApril9_2008.pdf

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

Now consider that males are more aggressive than average.

Now there's a can of worms that you don't want to open here. Suffice to say that from the threads discussing this, at best the evidence is inconclusive on the matter, and at worst women are at least as aggressive as men and according to some studies even more so.

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).

Clearly you're not aware of the majority of studies.

Nerds are defined as much by their lack of social skills as by their interest in science and technology.

I'm amazed you don't get dizzy from all the circular reasoning:

Define "nerds" as people who lack social skills.
State that a large proportion of skeptics are nerds.
Therefore skeptics tend to lack social skills.
4) Profit!

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.

You can postulate all you like. Without providing something to back up your personal opinions, your conclusions will be meaningless. I don't agree with a single one of your postulates. They are almost exactly the opposite of my own experiences, as can been seen from other responses in this thread most people here don't agree with them, and most importantly, they don't agree with the actual evidence where such exists.

As has already been pointed out, believers are generally percieved as far more hostile by people who interact with them - just try going to any religious or paranormal forum and disagreeing with them. No matter how polite and reasonable you are, you'll be lucky to get away with only having your posts deleted in most cases. Perhaps more importantly, believers are without question more hostile outside of the internet. How many religious people not only believe but actively promote ideas like killing all gays and atheists, banning any beliefs that disagree with them, and so on? And how many skeptics do the same? Sure, there are a few agressive skeptics and atheists around, Penn and Teller being perfect examples, but those are generally limited to making fun of silly beliefs. I can't think of a single skeptic who has called for the death of all religious people, yet that kind of thing is relatively common practice among the religious. And somehow we're the hostile ones?

 

[Beth]

Wouldn't it be pretty much what you'd expect, though?

No, it isn't what I expected. That's why I found it puzzling.

Under what circumstances do you get the opportunity to consider people hostile?

Anytime I interact with them.

You need disagreement and the closer the area of disagreement comes to your core beliefs, the greater your reaction will be to it.
You need a situation where people will actually let you know that they disagree; overcoming our social training designed to avoid confrontation.

No, people can be hostile without disagreement and I have, in fact, perceived that many times.

You need a set-up where you see 'them' as a specific group so that interaction with one of them is seem as an interaction with all.

That wouldn't be this forum then!

And you need lots of individual interactions to increase the absolute number seen as hostile. If you were going to design a place where you were most likely to see the members as hostile, an online forum dedicated to challenging and denying some of your core beliefs,

What core beliefs do you feel I have had challenged and denied here? Belief in god? I'm an agnostic. Belief in psi? I'm an agnostic. Despite the common assumption here that someone who is not an absolute disbeliever is a 'believer', it isn't true. Further, I generally participate in discussions about things I'm not entirely convinced of one way or the other. Once I've made up my mind, I don't find the subject as interesting to discuss.

where members are encouraged to speak out and defend their position, composed of a group that you do not identify with,

Actually, prior to joining this forum, I did consider myself a skeptic. Before I started posting here, I hadn't realized that skeptics weren't allowed to consider anything vaguely paranormal to have a non-negliable probability.

that is one of the busiest forums around and which you actively participate in, is going to be just that. You should have been surprised and puzzled if you did not consider the people here hostile.

You make a lot of assumptions. More than even me I think. I'm not saying the males, atheists or nerds are hostile. I'm saying that the confluence of their general proclivities could lead people to perceive hostility. Perhaps it's not a correct analysis, but it's one I at least find reasonable. More so that than the 'everyone who makes this observation shares the same biases and is determined to perceive things in that way' which seems to be your favored explanation.

That you are still here suggests that you actually encountered less hostility than expected - that males, atheists and nerds actually turned out to be a less hostile group than the converse.

I enjoy and seek out controversy and challenge. Here and elsewhere. A bit of hostility doesn't deter me as long as it isn't personal. I'm also notably lacking in social skills myself.

Some of this seems to be simply substituting stereotypes for data.

Some of it probably is, as is much of what you've written. OTOH, some of the 'stereotypes' can be backed up with studies such as showing that skeptics are more likely to be male.

Luckily, you are female, not atheist and no longer a nerd, so no one will perceive that comment as hostile.

Linda

I've never managed to gain the social skills that would lift me out of nerddom. People have often percieved me as hostile or insulting when I didn't mean to be.

I heard a new statistician joke the other day. Do you know how to tell the difference between an introverted statistician and an extroverted statistician? The extroverted statistician looks at the other person's shoes when conversing. Actually, the guy I heard it from told it better.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not an atheist, but I am male and could be called a nerd. Two out of three ain't bad? However, I disagree with all the assessment of nerds and atheists. The male thing I just disagree on semantics. Nerds are people who are so passionate about something that they don't care about social limits on it. But the happiest, nicest people I know are nerds. Some of the nicest people I know are atheist.

 

[Moochie]

Show me your evidence or the kid gets it!


M.

 

[fls]

No, it isn't what I expected. That's why I found it puzzling.

That was a rhetorical statement suggesting that it may have been what someone would have expected if they'd thought it through (in order to set up the rest of the post).

Anytime I interact with them.

Exactly.

No, people can be hostile without disagreement and I have, in fact, perceived that many times.

I worded that poorly, then. I was setting up a set of circumstances under which someone could be seen as hostile. I didn't intend to imply that it was the only set of circumstances under which someone could be seen as hostile.

That wouldn't be this forum then! What core beliefs do you feel I have had challenged and denied here? Belief in god? I'm an agnostic. Belief in psi? I'm an agnostic. Despite the common assumption here that someone who is not an absolute disbeliever is a 'believer', it isn't true. Further, I generally participate in discussions about things I'm not entirely convinced of one way or the other. Once I've made up my mind, I don't find the subject as interesting to discuss.

It was my understanding as well that you are agnostic on the issue of god and on the existance of psi. Although as far as I can recall, your entrance to this forum was to work on a possible protocol for the Million Dollar Challenge involving telekinesis?

Actually, prior to joining this forum, I did consider myself a skeptic. Before I started posting here, I hadn't realized that skeptics weren't allowed to consider anything vaguely paranormal to have a non-negliable probability.

I'm still waiting for the rule-book to arrive in the mail.

You make a lot of assumptions. More than even me I think. I'm not saying the males, atheists or nerds are hostile. I'm saying that the confluence of their general proclivities could lead people to perceive hostility.

Yes, that is what I thought you were saying.

Perhaps it's not a correct analysis, but it's one I at least find reasonable. More so that than the 'everyone who makes this observation shares the same biases and is determined to perceive things in that way' which seems to be your favored explanation.

My favoured explanation is that our observations tend to be coloured by our biases, and that this applies to myself, not just others.

I enjoy and seek out controversy and challenge. Here and elsewhere. A bit of hostility doesn't deter me as long as it isn't personal.

Ah, then it doesn't really say much about the amount of hostility one way or the other.

I'm also notably lacking in social skills myself.
Some of it probably is, as is much of what you've written. OTOH, some of the 'stereotypes' can be backed up with studies such as showing that skeptics are more likely to be male.

Yes, that was the one bit of information you backed up, and I have no dispute with that.

I heard a new statistician joke the other day. Do you know how to tell the difference between an introverted statistician and an extroverted statistician? The extroverted statistician looks at the other person's shoes when conversing. Actually, the guy I heard it from told it better.

Emphasizing "other" with something like italics would improve the delivery.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Nerds are people who are so passionate about something that they don't care about social limits on it.

Interesting. Rather a different definition of 'nerd' than I'm familiar with.

But the happiest, nicest people I know are nerds. Some of the nicest people I know are atheist.

We have no disagreement then!

 

[tyr_13]

It is the definition of both nerd and geek that was used in the studies I've read on the psychology and sociology or such.

If you use the other definition said here on this thread, then it very much is circular reasoning.

 

[Beth]

It was my understanding as well that you are agnostic on the issue of god and on the existance of psi. Although as far as I can recall, your entrance to this forum was to work on a possible protocol for the Million Dollar Challenge involving telekinesis?

Yes. And I was informed that one of the reasons they were NOT interested in testing me was that I didn't seem to believe it myself.

My favoured explanation is that our observations tend to be coloured by our biases, and that this applies to myself, not just others.

We have no disagreement then. I think that perceptions are indeed colored by our biases and expectations. On the other hand, when one's observations are not what one was expecting, it doesn't favor the explanation that the observer was 'determined' to see what they expected to see.

Ah, then it doesn't really say much about the amount of hostility one way or the other.

Correct, my participating in this forum doesn't say much about the amount of hostility one way or the other.

Yes, that was the one bit of information you backed up, and I have no dispute with that.

I've also provided a source for my statements regarding atheists. IN the report you referenced, which had a different result, the lack of a statistically significant effect could easily have been due to the much smaller sample sizes used.

BTW, I'll retract what I said about nerds. Apparently the definition has been altered substantially from the more colloquial use when I was in H.S.

 

[fls]

On the other hand, when one's observations are not what one was expecting, it doesn't favor the explanation that the observer was 'determined' to see what they expected to see.

Since you seem to be clinging to the idea that I said that you were determined to see skeptics as hostile, let me clarify. I don't think you were determined to see skeptics as hostile. The statement was made in a different context. I think that some people are determined to see skeptics as hostile and that focussing on eliminating (or even just reducing it?) that possibility is ultimately not useful - it probably can't be successful, and it may make us less effective.

I've also provided a source for my statements regarding atheists.

You provided reference to a book. It doesn't support your statement unless we trust that you have accurately represented what it says. I'd rather not depend upon that, especially in the light of contradictory studies. If you have the book, it would help if you could provide a more exact reference.

IN the report you referenced, which had a different result, the lack of a statistically significant effect could easily have been due to the much smaller sample sizes used.

There are numerous other studies as well.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Since you seem to be clinging to the idea that I said that you were determined to see skeptics as hostile, let me clarify. I don't think you were determined to see skeptics as hostile. The statement was made in a different context. I think that some people are determined to see skeptics as hostile and that focussing on eliminating (or even just reducing it?) that possibility is ultimately not useful - it probably can't be successful, and it may make us less effective.

Okay. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Yes, I though you were insisting I was so determined.

You provided reference to a book. It doesn't support your statement unless we trust that you have accurately represented what it says. I'd rather not depend upon that, especially in the light of contradictory studies. If you have the book, it would help if you could provide a more exact reference.

Fair enough. It was a library book. I don't have any better access to it than you do.

There are numerous other studies as well.

Do they support the conclusion I referenced? If not, do they have a sufficient sample size to make the null of "no difference" a reasonable conclusion?

 

[fls]

Do they support the conclusion I referenced? If not, do they have a sufficient sample size to make the null of "no difference" a reasonable conclusion?

I see. Atheists are angry and unhappy until proven otherwise.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

Do they support the conclusion I referenced? If not, do they have a sufficient sample size to make the null of "no difference" a reasonable conclusion?

In these nonexperimental, ex post facto designs,there is no independent variable and no possibility of random assignment. Thus, the question is not how many subjects are in the groups, because the ns do not justify the means. How representative the sample is of paramount importance.

Differential sampling bias is a frequent confound in these correlational studies.

 

[Beth]

I see. Atheists are angry and unhappy until proven otherwise.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Linda

What point is that?

I read a book on the subject a year or so ago. So I have seen and cited reseach results that showed that on average, they were more angry and less happy than the average person. Also more intelligent. And less likely to evangelize their beliefs. And a few other things I no longer remember and aren't particularly pertinent to the conversation.

Until I see better research that contradicts what I have already seen, why should I doubt the academic researchers (themselves atheists) who published it? If you haven't read the book and don't choose to take my word for it, that's fine. But am I supposed to stop believing the research I have seen? Without any evidence to indicate it's mistaken? It was, incidently listed in the bibliography of the study you referenced.

I notice you didn't answer my question, BTW. You said there were numerous other studies, persumably you've looked at some of them. Do they support the same conclusion as the study I referenced? If not, do they have a sufficient sample size to make the null of "no difference" a reasonable conclusion? I ask because once a conclusion has been established, which it has in this case, I believe the scientific approach is to accept those results tbhe evidence gives until better evidence indicates otherwise. On the other hand, it's quite possible that other, better research has come to a different conclusion. That can happen. It's not my field, so I'm necessarily abreast of the latest developments.

Feel free to change my mind with evidence.

 

[Beth]

In these nonexperimental, ex post facto designs,there is no independent variable and no possibility of random assignment. Thus, the question is not how many subjects are in the groups, because the ns do not justify the means. How representative the sample is of paramount importance.

Differential sampling bias is a frequent confound in these correlational studies.

IIRC, the authors devote the first chapter to explaining exactly how they acheived their sample and what limitations it has. It was as representative as they could manage.

 

[fls]

What point is that?

That the observations on this matter are evaluated against a pre-conceived notion (i.e. the direction of proof is the opposite of what we usually consider).

I read a book on the subject a year or so ago. So I have seen and cited reseach results that showed that on average, they were more angry and less happy than the average person.

The information you have provided isn't adequate for me to know whether your statement accurately represents their findings. I trust that that's the way you remember it (i.e. that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the results), but that isn't a particularly reliable way of knowing just what it was that they found. For example, I don't know if it was based on something like "70 percent are angry about 'the role, dominance, or effects of religion in the world'".

You have to remember that I live in the Southeast. This book isn't something that any of my local libraries carry. If I had my Kindle (on my Christmas list), I'd have already answered my question. As it is, I have elected to e-mail one of the authors instead.

Until I see better research that contradicts what I have already seen, why should I doubt the academic researchers (themselves atheists) who published it? If you haven't read the book and don't choose to take my word for it, that's fine. But am I supposed to stop believing the research I have seen? Without any evidence to indicate it's mistaken? It was, incidently listed in the bibliography of the study you referenced.

I notice you didn't answer my question, BTW. You said there were numerous other studies, persumably you've looked at some of them. Do they support the same conclusion as the study I referenced? If not, do they have a sufficient sample size to make the null of "no difference" a reasonable conclusion? I ask because once a conclusion has been established, which it has in this case, I believe the scientific approach is to accept those results tbhe evidence gives until better evidence indicates otherwise. On the other hand, it's quite possible that other, better research has come to a different conclusion. That can happen. It's not my field, so I'm necessarily abreast of the latest developments.

You haven't provided enough information for me to know what conclusions can be considered to be established. That you consider the conclusion to be established isn't particularly helpful considering that you earlier stated that you were unaware of the other studies that focussed on atheists and you are relying on your memory. I can't speak as to whether any of the studies I have read had the same findings as the one you reference, or whether a different finding was sufficiently large that it would overcome their findings, because you haven't told me exactly what it was that they found nor the strength of that finding. I will let you know after I get more information.

Linda

 

[Limbo]

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say it — most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type." -Susan Blackmore (bold mine)

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth." -Dr. Richard Kluft (bold mine)

Genuine skepticism is rare, especially in activist skeptic organizations and communities such as this one. Sam Harris has said that religious liberals provide cover for religious fundamentalists. Maybe the genuine skeptics are providing cover for pseudo-skeptics in a similar fashion.