Constructive Skeptic

[Bearguin]

I was in a seminar recently. Dealing with how external auditors need to look at the Financial statements given new SEC rules etc. The one thing that struck me was when their role was described as a "constructive skeptic".

I thought this was an excellant description and one that we should strive to apply here. But I'm not sure how to completely describe it.

Rational but with some empathy.
Realistic in how far is far enough when looking for proof of a claim.
Communicative in the standards to be used.
Requiring evidence of events without explanation before pursuing an explanation for an event.

I think the JREF challenge does a good job of this, even while Randi himself may not fit in all ways (bit of a grump).

What may I be missing?

 

[jj]

I was in a seminar recently. Dealing with how external auditors need to look at the Financial statements given new SEC rules etc. The one thing that struck me was when their role was described as a "constructive skeptic".

I thought this was an excellant description and one that we should strive to apply here. But I'm not sure how to completely describe it.

Rational but with some empathy.
Realistic in how far is far enough when looking for proof of a claim.
Communicative in the standards to be used.
Requiring evidence of events without explanation before pursuing an explanation for an event.

I think the JREF challenge does a good job of this, even while Randi himself may not fit in all ways (bit of a grump).

What may I be missing?

I agree. If we can every get the poison out of the well here, I'd rather take on that role.

 

[Bearguin]

Re: Re: Constructive Skeptic

I agree. If we can every get the poison out of the well here, I'd rather take on that role.

How do you mean? Can't you ignore the poison and move forward in a constructive fashion? (and I'm not suggesting you haven't been, just that the current pison should not be used as an excuse.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Constructive Skeptic

How do you mean? Can't you ignore the poison and move forward in a constructive fashion? (and I'm not suggesting you haven't been, just that the current pison should not be used as an excuse.

It's the old Gresham's law thing, which applies far beyond economics, I think.

Something happens when boards "get old and grow up". The people already there polarize, etc, and something has to happen to open up discussion again.

I think one of the causes is that people stop being isolated names, and start taking on the facets of individuals, and then others start to care about the individuals, and we see the Claus/Luci wars, the "king of the hill" bunch, and so on.

Boards eventually get past it, but it always comes back to recur here and there.

I'm afraid that after the tsuris surrounding the impending change and then no change on this board, I've lost most faith in its continued existance, or in its ability to act as a resource.

There are many discussions worth having, but all I'll ever see is Ian calling me thick and stupid, or Jocko/Rockoon/BobK lying about what I mean, extracting things from context, etc, or so on and so forth. It's all part of the political process of a board like this.

In my experience boards that squash bullies early and often avoid this problem. I think it's not early enough any more here.