• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

The problem with the Gorilla clip analogy presented here is that when the gorilla is pointed out to those who were watching the basketball, they can see it quite easily.

Unlike psychic phenomena.
 
"Because of these blind spots, some common aspects of human experience literally cannot be seen by those who've spent decades embedded within the Western scientific worldview. That worldview, like any set of cultural beliefs inculcated from childhood, acts like the blinders they put on skittish horses to keep them calm. Between the blinders we see with exceptional clarity, but seeing beyond the blinders is not only exceedingly difficult, after a while it's easy to forget that your vision is restricted.

What part of the Western scientific worldview has made me blind to "some common aspects of human experience?" Further, is this to suggest that those who were not brought up in the Western scientific worldview (roughly 2/3 of the human population) would not be blind in such a way?

I'm genuinely curious as to your answers to these questions, especially about what part of my society has made me blind. Did the scientific method make me blind?
 
What Gorilla?: Why Some Can't See Psychic Phenomena

[...]

"Because of these blind spots, some common aspects of human experience literally cannot be seen by those who've spent decades embedded within the Western scientific worldview. That worldview, like any set of cultural beliefs inculcated from childhood, acts like the blinders they put on skittish horses to keep them calm. Between the blinders we see with exceptional clarity, but seeing beyond the blinders is not only exceedingly difficult, after a while it's easy to forget that your vision is restricted.

An important class of human experience that these blinders exclude is psychic phenomena, those commonly reported spooky experiences, such as telepathy and clairvoyance, that suggest we are deeply interconnected in ways that transcend the ordinary senses and our everyday notions of space and time.

Exclusion of these phenomena creates a Catch 22: Human experiences credibly reported throughout history, across all cultures, and at all educational levels, repeatedly tell us that psychic phenomena exist. But Big Science -- especially as portrayed in prominent newspapers and popular magazines like Scientific American -- says it doesn't.

Well then, is this gorilla in the basketball game, or not? One way to find out is to study the question using the highly effective tools of science while leaving the worldview assumptions behind. That way we can study the question without prejudice, like watching a basketball game without preferring either the white or black team. Neutral observers are much more likely to spot a gorilla, if one is indeed present."

[...]

See? This is the problem. You are actually going to go ahead and pretend that this is not a ridiculously silly argument. How can we possibly take anything you and other believers claim seriously, when you hold this up as an example of your reasoning prowess. I truly think that you are better than this and I am sincerely suggesting that you stop. As I mentioned in the thread about Dean Radin's Entangled Minds, this behaviour seriously erodes any respect you could hope to garner from scientists in related fields.

Linda
 
The difference between a gorilla that is there and a phenomenon that is not...is a gorilla.

Which part of this do you have difficulty with?
 
I know two witnesses to Scole, whom I trust as honest(though of course foolable). I can think of no explanation of what they say they saw, unless they were drugged. Even then, there is a consistency to their accounts inconsistent with hypnotics or hallucinogens.

If you have any hypothesis on the matter I'd be interested to read it.


Hullo! Um... sort of. The really annoying bit is I chickened out. Let me explain.

I have a friend, who I shall call John. I want to preserve his anonymity, because he has spent over fifty years investigating mediums from his first encounter as a boy. I have not seen John for a year or so, but while elderly now (in his seventies) he is mentally alert. John is not a spiritualist, but in his youth he saw a materialisation medium - and was VERY impressed. Since that time he has made a concerted effort to find another "genuine" medium - and while he is not a spiritualist, he believes in the possibility sincerely.

Unfortunately John has been repeatedly disappointed, or was. He was however never going to give up - and he took part in at least two exposes of fraud in the Spiritualist movement, not headline stuff, but damaging to the mediums involved. He is nowadays unutterably cynical - but Scole was actually a bit of a refreshment for him, and he is to this day convinced by what he saw.

In the mid to late 1990's, I was giving a lecture to the newly formed Angliuan Psychic Research Group, and was talking about mediumship. I arranged the venue, and chose The White Hart in Scole, and the "training day" which involved rather a jaundiced take on psychic investigation had just moved in to the afternoon session when I was do to talk about my issues with mediumship, and my research in the area. Some locals asked to join us - and subsequently one of them revealed they were doing some groundbreaking research in the field. They berated me quite rightly for my lack of knowledge of modern work in the area! :)

I was a little embarasssed -- I had simply assumed they were interestd locals likely to take the proverbial, and was now lectured on the history of the Noah's Ark Society, their take on the Lincoln affair, Alexander etc. I did not at the time know of the Scole Research Group -- I am not sure anyone did. They cordially invited me to visit, but while my parents live just twenty miles south, I live on the other side of the country. (For those who do not appreciate the size of this rther embarassing coincindence, Scole is not a major metropolis! It's really a large village in a sleepy part of East anglia :))

A few months, maybe a year later John told me that a new group was doing stiuff in Scole in Norfolk. I laughed and said I had met them. John then said he had been invited to attend a session, and I was also invited. So we set off, and stayed at my parents house. My father took the proverbial mightily, and even though he was used to his son the ghosthunter this was one step too far. On the morning of the session some old school friends asked me to an rpg session (a game, not grenades!) and a bit embarassed after my former experience, John went alone. I bitterly regret this to this day. I'm still not sure what stopped me going -- I had sat in many seances by this point, but I was never very comfortable with it. I felt, I dunno, it's all a bit - well anyway I'm not keen on seances. Still...

John went, and when he returned he was flabbergasted. He had seen lights, small lights which moved around the table in the dark. I suggested those fiber optic filamants, as apparently the lights landed on his hand, and touched his face. John could not confirm or deny this, but agreed it was a possibility. Then he said he had saw something quite remarkable - two lights slowly seemed ot grow, and form the eyes of a figurine, some ten inches I think he said, high. The figurine looked like a little statue of the Virgin - then it was gone, I forget how. I need to ask John about this, when I meet him again.

John returned twice more, and i spoke to a good number of the SPR investigators I think in the period when they were active at Scole. I never set foot in the place, but certainly no one in the village or Norfolkcircles had much idea of what was going on, or felt any reason to dislike the people involved. I expected dirt - I looked for it, as the "energy based" thing made no more sense to me than ectoplasm - it all sounded like rubbish, and i had just finished my major sceptical work on ley lines - which I hope to get published one day - demolishing the concept. Energy? Sorry, when people say "energy" outside of physics I just groan inwardly. Glass domes? Charged crystals?

Now the thing is, I have since read the Scole Report. I can't find John's experience in their, presumably it was one that was not reported on by the SPR team, but I nterviewed him quite brutally some twenty minutes after the session. The ending of the whole thing was - well I am sure you know! Yet John was completely sincere, and nobody's fool. He was deeply annoyed that Light Intensifier gear could not be employed in the sessions, but he has deteted fraud on several occasions under far worse conditions. He is cautious - he thinks the phenomena was probably genuine, but what it was... well he was not convinced in any direction. I asked him carefully about his access, he drew diagrams, he had searched the room prior to the session. He genuinely came to like the people.

What happened at Scole? I don't know. The PSPR Report, which I will happily mail you if you would like to read it, is divided between those convinced and those who think fraud. The researchers struck me as open - but I wa at one point convinced something sinister was afoot - I found Lincoln, aka Colin Fry, had attended a few sessions early on. I immediately was convinced this was very -- well anyway I asked John, who said Colin had met the folks through calling at their house on other business, carpet fitting or something. That si my recollection. John was amused by this, but as Robin Foy and Colin Fry had both been members of the Noahs Ark Society, it seemed a bit coincidental.

There was also some politics between the Noahs Ark Society and the Scole group, the details of which I never was privy to, but they did not seem to get on from what I could see. Still I tried to find out what I could - interviewing folks, chatting to investigators, asking around - but really at the end of the day we are looking at phenomena which took place in the semi-dark, in a small basement. The newspaper apport screams out fake to me - it is a modern faiurly replica with the worng colour nasthead - and I still find it easier to believe people were decived than the claims are true.Yet the Scole group also strike me as VERY open and approachable - they invited investigators, including sceptics, and travelled all over the place including the USA, performing for lack of a better word in "venues" they did not control. I'm genuuinely puzzled. :)

Hope this reply helps Sam. It's not much, but its my honest recollection of the events of about a decade ago. I still am curious as to why I never went, and i think its that old thing about a prophet being without honour in his home country. The idea of anything important and interesting happenning in Scole - well as a Suffolk/Norfolk border lad, I just could not take it sriously. It would have to rain frogs, cats dogs and elvis impersonators for hours in Diss or Brandon would have to be visited by the mother of all motherships before i could really find something this close to home believable!

cj x
 
This accords with the reports I have. The light shows were apparently very impressive. My contacts cannot imagine any way what they saw could have been faked by projection apparatus, but as you say- a darkened basement which may have been well prepared in advance- and as so often, the lack of any significance to any contact- no revelations, no new elements, no explanation of anything previously unknown. My opinion and like you I was not there- is trickery, but of a very advanced kind. I would be very happy to know precisely what kind.
I too understand there was a falling out between some of the participants.

Yes, I'd be interested to read the report you mention. Real mail or email?
I'll PM you my details.
 
My opinion and like you I was not there- is trickery, but of a very advanced kind. I would be very happy to know precisely what kind.


If there is trickery through advanced technology, what did tricksters use to fake light shows in the days before fiber optic filamants? Mysterious lights are very old.

It seems to me that an explanation needs to apply to the past as well as the present, or else it lacks explanatory power.
 
I presented material and asked for comments, which people are providing. And I appreciate it.

I don't see why I have to get involved in dragged out debate about it, it's not necessary and it won't solve anything. I'm interested in gathering responses, not debating material. Just respond to the material if you wish, or ignore it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head...I'm not forcing to all to comment. Neither will I be bullied into a pointless debate at this time.

Ok, so I guess that you won't respond to me if I state that your use of "cognitive dissonance" shows a misunderstanding of what Festinger meant by it and how he supposedly demonstrated it and the criticisms that other psychologists have made of the construct in the half century or so since.
 
Not done reading yet--likely will finish it, because it is (what a surprise!) on an area of interest to me. But since I made it that far...

I am quite familiar with James's work, with Munsterberg's, and with Houdini's. Hell, I have multiple folders on each that I use in my classes. I have to say, the characterizations of Munsterberg's and Houdini's attitudes are... spun. (Now that it is a page back, I won't swear to James, because I can't remember the specific adjectives you used. Oh, and have you seen Wundt's writings on the topic? Very level-headed, very polite, and clearly concluding that the seance he had witnessed was much more evidence of a willingness of some sitters to believe than of spirits to believe in.) You call theirs "extreme reactions"; I could not disagree more. If you are that loose in your interpretations of other writers, I will be sad to see. Too bad; I had hoped that someone at the event (which I really wanted to go to!) would be there to offset Rupert Sheldrake.

Oh, it's Martin Gardner, not Martin Gardiner. Minor, but you might want to correct.

I disagree with your blanket description of skeptics, although it is a useful strawman given your thesis.

Your Alcock quote could very easily be interpreted in a vastly different manner than you choose to--that claims telepathy are not "deeply worrying" (as you put it), but simply ludicrous! Your spin is, I think, a very suspicious interpretation. Again, I have this book, so I can check for context.

I agree with Corey--you have misinterpreted Festinger.

I think I'll stop here for now. I have to wonder what your talk would have been like had you run it by knowledgeable skeptics first. Could I ask who you did have review it?
 
Last edited:
I disagree with your blanket description of skeptics, although it is a useful strawman given your thesis.


Just wondering if you disagree with any and all blanket statements, or just those against groups you identify with. I don't know you from Jack so I'm wondering if maybe you're a little more tolerant of, for instance, blanket statements about woo-woos or religious folk. I hope you're not offended by the question.
 
Last edited:
Just wondering if you disagree with any and all blanket statements, or just those against groups you identify with. I don't know you from Jack so I'm wondering if maybe you're a little more tolerant of, for instance, blanket statements about woo-woos or religious folk.

Let's assume skeptics are all pathologically mean, spiteful people.

Is there any scientific evidence that, for example, ESP exists?
 
Let's assume skeptics are all pathologically mean, spiteful people.

Is there any scientific evidence that, for example, ESP exists?


If there was, would such people be capable of evaluating all of it objectively?
 
Last edited:
I suppose you could ask around, or check my posting history. Or you could take my word for it, or even ask the people who were moderators while I was on the mod/admin team. I have a strong history of treating individuals as individuals, of trying to put myself in others' shoes, of taking their words in the light most favorable to them. As admin, I instituted a "devil's advocate" position in the mod team to be certain that unpopular opinions were given the best representation we could muster.

If and when an individual demonstrates he or she deserves it, though, I have no qualms arguing against either believers or skeptics. I have disagreed with prominent skeptics, prolific dissenters (many of whom would call themselves skeptics, of course), and even my closest friends here.

I teach my students to question--especially when they hear something they agree with, because that is when we are most vulnerable to confirmation bias. But having questioned and found the best data, they should be prepared to make decisions, and not avoid taking a stance when the evidence demands that they do.

Do I sound like the blanket description of the skeptic as you describe?

Didn't think so.

(And yes, feel free to check my posting history, or to ask around. Too bad Interesting Ian is no longer here, or hammegk, or Freda. We disagreed on most things, so they'd be pretty decent character witnesses.)
 
If there was, would such people be capable of evaluating all of it objectively?

That isn't the point at all. It does...not...matter.

People were complaining that the media was being mean to Gov. Palin. That didn't make her qualified, or smart. Someone being mean has absolutely nothing to do with them being right.

Most such people, skeptics who only want good evidence to base their conclusions on, would of course be able to evaluate it with a good level of objectivity. If it is what they what; evidence.

Got any reliable evidence?
 
Do I sound like the blanket description of the skeptic as you describe?

Didn't think so.


No you don't and I'm always excited to find exceptions to the rule. The exceptions are the only people that I have any chance of having a civil conversation with.
 
Last edited:
That isn't the point at all. It does...not...matter.

People were complaining that the media was being mean to Gov. Palin. That didn't make her qualified, or smart. Someone being mean has absolutely nothing to do with them being right.

Most such people, skeptics who only want good evidence to base their conclusions on, would of course be able to evaluate it with a good level of objectivity. If it is what they what; evidence.

Got any reliable evidence?


It doesn't matter? Got any reliable evidence of that? :p

I think that the psychological disposition of the skeptic when he/she evaluates evidence of a claim that seems to go against their belief system is important.

Just as it's important when a YEC evaluates evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.
 
No you don't and I'm always excited to find exceptions to the rule.

I did not get far enough in the paper to find it; could you please tell me what data allow you to call your strawman the rule, and not people like me? My experience is, it seems, quite different from yours; one or both of us could be victims of a heuristic gone bad.

My own experience, admittedly anecdotal, is limited to a few hundred skeptics I have met at conferences, whose papers I have read, and with whom I have interacted.

Your data?
 
No you don't and I'm always excited to find exceptions to the rule.

You haven't shown it to be a rule. There are a lot of mean skeptics, but there are a lot of mean people. Correlation isn't causation.

How about some more observations on the psychology of skeptics? I've observed that skeptics love to learn. At some point, they were dead wrong about something, and when they found out why and how, they thought, "wow, that's neat. I wonder what other amazing things I can learn like this!" Then along come believes, who also insist that the new skeptic is dead wrong, but don't use reasoning to prove it.

In my experience, skeptics love to be wrong. They love even more to be proven wrong, because then they learn.

There are pathological deniers and just people who hate to be wrong (as often believers as skeptics), yes. But that doesn't cover skeptics well.

Perhaps there should be a thread on the psychology of believers.
 
It doesn't matter? Got any reliable evidence of that? :p

I think that the psychological disposition of the skeptic when he/she evaluates evidence of a claim that seems to go against their belief system is important.

Just as it's important when a YEC evaluates evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

You forgot to mention Hitler.

Being mean doesn't change the evidence.
 
Just wondering if you disagree with any and all blanket statements, or just those against groups you identify with.

Personally, I disagree with blanket statements that are inaccurate. "Most Deadheads are stoners" is a blanket statement that isn't very flattering to me, but in my experience it's accurate, so I don't disagree with it.
 

Back
Top Bottom