Making a Difference

[Beleth]

This is from another thread. The jist of it is that Claus and I were talking about how much politeness matters when talking to a someone with paranormal or religious beliefs.

What would you do to get people stop believing in falsehoods? I run SkepticReport. I am a board member of New York Area Skeptics. I am a member of Skeptica, the Danish skeptics. I am a member of JREF. I post on various boards, I write articles, I go on radio and TV, I attend psychic fairs, I do whatever I can.

What do you suggest?

Of the things you mention, going on radio and TV is the best way to make a difference. And even then, if you're not careful the host of the TV or radio show can still make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying that that's the case with you, but the potential certainly exists.

So, what would you do?

I wrote the Challenge FAQ, of course. But I tend to focus my energy into other things besides skepticism. What I am doing, though, is raising my son to be a skeptic. There's not a whole lot I can do with a 4-year-old, but I do make sure he knows the difference between a real thing and things he sees in movies. Santa Claus is still going to be an interesting discussion some day, I admit...

 

[Beleth]

Please ask questions about this topic here, Claus. As I promised The GM, I will not continue to derail the Wiccan thread.

 

[Marian]

My two cents, for what little it's going to be worth in this discussion.

I have found that when *I* am incorrect or wrong about something, I respond far better when someone is polite, than when someone is rude. If someone is rude about it, I may choose to dismiss what they're saying on the basis of rudeness. Why should I listen to someone who is being insulting?

Of course, I am not a woo. I still think that's true of most people though.

I've spent a considerable amount of time with TLN on PalTalk listening and investigating numerous psychic and paranormal claims. Generally people fall under 3 groups (who claim to believe).

1) Frauds. These are the people who really know they can't do anything they're claiming, or a portion of what they're claiming and are in it either for money, or some other form of payoff (recognition, attention, etc.). Some also believe that what they are doing is helpful to people, so rationalize why lying is okay.

2) The deluded. These are the people who really truly believe that they or others can do paranormal things. They often have considerable investment in their beliefs.

3) Mentally ill people. These are people with some degree of mental illness that doesn't allow them to discern fantasy from reality. They may truly be hearing voices. They may be so paralyzed by depression that they're clinging to the need to believe. There's something clinically wrong with these people.

Now, trying to figure out which it is, or which combination it is...is often a guess. It may be an educated guess, but it's a guess nonetheless.

The other day I revisited PalTalk with TLN. We were observing in one of the psychic rooms, and they were talking about spirit guides. I asked if I could ask questions.

If they say no, then I do not ask questions. I sit and listen. I'm going into their house, in essense, and I'm not there to disrupt them. I'm there primarily to observe what they're doing. I can then discuss this later in a room run by either Ted or myself.

In this case, they allowed questions. I asked things (this is purely off memory) like why do they believe in spirit guides. I got a variety of answers. I was also told 'everyone' has one. I asked how they know this, since I do not believe *I* have one. I was told it's also in the 'bible'. There was some discussion about that.

I was interested in seeing discussion, because first, I'd like to know WHAT they believe, and why. Second, it's always interesting to see that rarely do they all agree on beliefs. They're used to simply nodding heads as one person says something they all affirm, without anyone ever really talking about the underlying things. And there's always a good chance that someone has never examined why they believe. I've heard "well, because it's true/well because I do" offered many many many times when I've asked why they believe what they do.

No one was born believing this, it has some foundation. And then that foundation has structure. That's what I'm interested in knowing. Especially when it might be the only time they've ever given it conscious thought.

Very quickly I was screamed at by the guy who ran the room that he had been privately told we were 'skeptics' and to 'GET OUT SKEPTICS WHO MOCK US, GO TO YOUR OWN SKEPTIC ROOM'. Then I was booted.

I PMed the guy who had screamed at me and booted me, asking why I had been treated in such a manner. I had asked if I could ask questions, and he had said yes. In fact, he had expressly said that was WHY the room was there. I had been honest in stating I didn't share their beliefs, and was genuine in my questions. He chose not to respond.

Meanwhile there was a person in the room who had shared that her son had died, and that she had mediums tell her things. I simply told her I was sorry for her loss, as I was asking other questions.

This person chose to contact me via PM after the entire 'skeptics out' thing. She asked why wouldn't I believe that mediums could contact her son.

Without getting into the very long conversation that followed, she (like many others) demanded I offer explanations for HOW this could have happened other than paranormal means. I told her, I don't know, because I wasn't there. I can't listen to tapes because she had none. I can tell her how cold readings work, and how this stuff is done, but otherwise it's like demanding a mechanic tell you why your car died, with only telling them it stopped running, and no they can't look under the hood. That wasn't the analogy I used, but I should have, I like that one (just thought of it since I can't remember what I did use ;p)

Long story short, this woman lost her 17 year old son in a car accident. She was very close to him and this literally devistated her life. She said that other relatives had expressed serious concern over the amount of time she was spending in spiritualist churches.

It's no mystery WHY she seeks contact with her son. She wants that connection she had with him to continue, and she simply can't let go or move on. And because these vultures are doing this, she stuck in her grief. She can't move on.

And she said repeatedly that she needed to believe. She went so far as to say that she felt she couldn't survive without her belief, and needed to believe so badly that she'll pretty much believe no matter what.

So, why should I bother? Or why shouldn't I just confront her over and over and hammer away?

Because it lacks compassion, and because it also does no good. I'm not giong to convince this woman to see reason. She's already questioning it, because she chose to speak to me. Part of it was her need to convince me, but part of it is because deeeeep down inside I believe she is also questioning it. I can offer her 'more reasonable' explanations for things she believes are paranormal, but I can't tell her exactly what happened, since I wasn't there. And I'm honest about that.

I also can't tell her if there's an afterlife or not, I don't know. I don't think there is, but really...I don't know. And that's an area of belief that is pretty much inviolate, as long as people aren't claiming proof and evidence. People claiming they can talk to the dead, that's a claim...and one that they can either DO, or cannot DO. I mentioned the JREF $1,000,000 challenge and asked her if people could do this thing, why wouldn't they prove it to ALL the world, then no one need suffer wondering what happens after death? Plus they'd have a million bucks.

I also asked her what it would mean if these people were lying to her. What if it was a sham? She couldn't look at that. But the seed was planted for her to question it. I also empathized with her loss, because you know what, it is incredibly painful.

And this stuff makes me angry. Not at her, I can understand her, but at the vultures who smile to themselves and say 'See, I'm helping, she NEEDS this!'. I want to strangle them.

In the end, one of the things she clung to most was her last words to her son. In the course of conversation she told me enough that I'm about 90% sure what they were. She said it wasn't 'I love you, or goodbye', it was by telephone and no one but her and her son knew it. I also knew his age, how he died, etc.

I'm about 90% sure her words were "Don't be late" or some variation. Because that's a pretty common thing for a parent to say to a 17 year old out at night.

I could have told her that too, but I chose not to. My goals in addressing this stuff is to stop harm. This woman was extremely emotionally distressed, as far as I could tell. I simply didn't know if that would be helpful, and I could see the potential where it would be harmful.

So I addressed the areas that I could (there were more, but no need to write them all out) and she's already begun questioning them.

This isn't a contest where I can tear someone to shreds and I 'win' if I can say "See there is just this little man behind the curtain...bye now!" and leave them to whatever end that means for them.

I'm interested only in saying "Wow, that's amazing...can I see?" when people make these extraordinary claims, and offering alternative viewpoints when people insist on the ancedotal evidence that they see. I'm there to offer information, like how mediums do what they do. Why memory isn't perfect and doesn't act like a camcorder.

This is a hard thing for people who believe, regardless of why they have an investment in believing. And I'd rather nurture their seeds of doubt, and encourage them to question it, to become skeptical themselves and arrive at their own conclusions with all the tools they need to do that, than to beat them over the head with The Truth, attempting to drag them kicking and screaming out of a cave of ignorance, only to see them run back in and be more afraid of ever venturing out again.

 

[Beleth]

How do you suggest that we get people to stop believing falsehoods?

Not just your son, but people.

That was the question, and you have not answered it.

First off, listen to them. Find out why they believe what they believe. Don't treat them like morons. Don't toss them off with some glib "they want to believe" or "they need to believe" - that's not answering why.

Then tailor your responses to their situation.

It is impolite to respond to this post in The GM's Wiccan thread. Please reply here.

 

[Beleth]

Marian -

That was a great post. There was a lot of heart and soul in it, and I will have to give it the time it deserves at a later date.

Thank you for making it.

 

[Mercutio]

How do I make a difference?

I teach two different "psychology of belief in paranormal" type courses, and bring the topics, when appropriate, into other classes. I am the prof the student newspaper goes to for the skeptical point of view. I have talked about these topics at the vet's office, my doctor's office, the grocery store, office picnics...in-laws....

My kids are growing up skeptical, and good kids, too.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Very quickly I was screamed at by the guy who ran the room that he had been privately told we were 'skeptics' and to 'GET OUT SKEPTICS WHO MOCK US, GO TO YOUR OWN SKEPTIC ROOM'. Then I was booted.

It's mysterious that you guys on here just don't get it. A lot of people, especially those disposed to believe in such stuff as a "life after death", simply do not like skeptics. They see them as being cold and rational and putting forward an idea of our lives and the Universe as being utterly absurd and meaningless. They don't like being told that we're just meat machines and that everything that we have ever strived towards, everything that we have ever achieved, ultimately means nothing whatsoever. They don't like being told that their loved ones have not passed on but have ceased to exist for the whole of eternity, and in a sense they might as well never have existed at all. They really don't want people like you coming along and saying that it is obviously correct that our lives and the Universe are absolutely pointless. They don't like it because deep down they feel it might all well be true.

Now I don't like skeptics either, but not for the same reason. I certainly don't disapprove of skeptics cautioning people about cold reading and the like. But I do disapprove of them for unthinkingly embracing the modern western Weltanschauung and then foisting this untenable belief system on the rest of us. What makes me feel so angry is that other non-skeptics don't understand how utterly ludicrous your belief system is and how it flies in the face of the evidence and reason.

You don't know what you're talking about Marian and I profoundly object to you going around and making peoples lives as miserable as possible by asserting that everything they ever treasured and the whole raison d'etre of their existence is utterly devoid of any meaning. You don't know that, you've just been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of the common western metaphysic. You and other skeptics are utterly clueless.

So don't go around depressing people!

Don't suppose it will do any good asking you though I just feel pleased that non-skeptics so readily evict skeptics from forums and discussion groups or wherever.

Good on them I say.

 

[Beleth]

So it's better to be happy than to be right?

 

[Marian]

It's mysterious that you guys on here just don't get it. A lot of people, especially those disposed to believe in such stuff as a "life after death", simply do not like skeptics. They see them as being cold and rational and putting forward an idea of our lives and the Universe as being utterly absurd and meaningless. They don't like being told that we're just meat machines and that everything that we have ever strived towards, everything that we have ever achieved, ultimately means nothing whatsoever. They don't like being told that their loved ones have not passed on but have ceased to exist for the whole of eternity, and in a sense they might as well never have existed at all. They really don't want people like you coming along and saying that it is obviously correct that our lives and the Universe are absolutely pointless. They don't like it because deep down they feel it might all well be true.

Now I don't like skeptics either, but not for the same reason. I certainly don't disapprove of skeptics cautioning people about cold reading and the like. But I do disapprove of them for unthinkingly embracing the modern western Weltanschauung and then foisting this untenable belief system on the rest of us. What makes me feel so angry is that other non-skeptics don't understand how utterly ludicrous your belief system is and how it flies in the face of the evidence and reason.

You don't know what you're talking about Marian and I profoundly object to you going around and making peoples lives as miserable as possible by asserting that everything they ever treasured and the whole raison d'etre of their existence is utterly devoid of any meaning. You don't know that, you've just been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of the common western metaphysic. You and other skeptics are utterly clueless.

So don't go around depressing people!

Don't suppose it will do any good asking you though I just feel pleased that non-skeptics so readily evict skeptics from forums and discussion groups or wherever.

Good on them I say.

You don't know what you're talking about Ian. And ultimately that's even sadder.

I've never suggested that their lives and the Universe is "pointless", or anything of the like. You're more than welcome to observe me in any room on PalTalk. As I stated in my rather lengthy post, I don't go in there and disrupt people. I don't go in there and fight or argue. And I certainly don't do any of the things you've claimed.

I'm there to listen, and if allowed, ask questions in their rooms. If they don't permit questions, then I simply observe. Any dialogue I have with people is ultimately at their request. Remember, that woman took it upon herself to PM me, after the administrator tossed us out for being 'skeptics'.

Perhaps you'd be better served with your statements by substituting "they" for "Ian", because clearly you're expressing your own opinion.

Many people don't like skeptics, not because they're rude, or "depressing", but because we don't simply blindly accept their word for things. If someone says they can talk to the dead, that's extremely interesting. I'm certainly interested in it, wouldn't you be? I'd certainly like to ...yanno...actually SEE it done.

When it comes to areas of pure belief, for which there is no proof...I don't personally care. If you choose to believe in an afterlife, and acknowledge that there's absolutely no evidence for it...fine by me. That's a belief.

Me personally? I don't know if there is or isn't one. If forced to actually pick one, I'd have to go with "nothing", because I haven't seen any evidence. But that's not even belief, but an opinion. I truly have no idea.

Many people try to prop up things that are belief with things they claim are 'proof'. Those are the things I'm interested in seeing.

Let me know if you ever have any Ian.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So it's better to be happy than to be right?

I suggest you read my post again.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You don't know what you're talking about Ian. And ultimately that's even sadder.

Ah! I see my post hit home. That's good

I've never suggested that their lives and the Universe is "pointless", or anything of the like.

Which will be because you're unable to psychologically embrace all the implications of your worldview. But the believers you talk to might well do.

You're more than welcome to observe me in any room on PalTalk. As I stated in my rather lengthy post, I don't go in there and disrupt people. I don't go in there and fight or argue. And I certainly don't do any of the things you've claimed.

I'm there to listen, and if allowed, ask questions in their rooms. If they don't permit questions, then I simply observe. Any dialogue I have with people is ultimately at their request. Remember, that woman took it upon herself to PM me, after the administrator tossed us out for being 'skeptics'.

Perhaps you'd be better served with your statements by substituting "they" for "Ian", because clearly you're expressing your own opinion.

No I don't feel the same way as they do. I wouldn't have posted 12000 posts on this board otherwise. I don't mind people trying to convince me that there is no "life after death", no ESP, no purpose to existence. On the contrary, I'd be delighted at anyone trying to attempt such an argument.

Many people don't like skeptics, not because they're rude, or "depressing", but because we don't simply blindly accept their word for things.

We'll have to differ on that.

If someone says they can talk to the dead, that's extremely interesting. I'm certainly interested in it, wouldn't you be? I'd certainly like to ...yanno...actually SEE it done.

I'm not saying that people can. I'm becoming more sympathetic to the superpsi hypothesis. However, I'm in agreement with Susan Blackmore that the very existence of psi is highly suggestive of a "life after death".

When it comes to areas of pure belief, for which there is no proof...I don't personally care. If you choose to believe in an afterlife, and acknowledge that there's absolutely no evidence for it...fine by me. That's a belief.

Well there's a huge amount of evidence. Apparitions, reincarnation research, deathbed visions/NDEs, mediumship. Apart from mediumship each of these is highly suggestive of the survival hypothesis considered in isolation.

I don't mind going on pal to provide some balance. Just give me a pm next time you decide to depress people on there.

 

[Ed]

Whenever I see something that might, under other circumstances, be interpreted as "paranormal" I point it out to my kids and show the real reasons. Case in point. I was sitting in my study and heard voices. Heard 'em the night before but they seemed to go away. Very odd. Could not understand what they were saying but they were clearly voices. Turns out a TV was on (when it should not have been). I pointed out that if, in the intrem, someone would have turned it off I would have had a "phenomenon".

Similarly, we get these cool whisps of fog. About 5-6 feet tall, thin, sometimes 1, sometimes more. They move, they undulate. They are ghosts.

Whenever we see a magition on TV I ask them "suppose he said he has "mysterious powers", would you believe him?" Seeing how an overt faker can really fool you allows them to see how context can trap the unwary.

I also point out that adults lie and can do so convincingly and right to your face. We knew a chick a while back that had a problem. She lied. About everything. Owning a horse, going to the Indie, on and on. No money in it for her, something else that I never quite understood. She actually reported her father as having died on 3 seperate occasions to three different audiences (to get out of tight situations). When it was my turn as audience, I believed cuz I wanted to. And that is the basis for a lot of the paranormal. Everyday pathology on everyone's part with no fact checking.

So showing how these things are part of life and saying "and suppose they said "I talked to the dead" illustrates that when stuff gets odd one must be vigilant.

 

[Harlequin]

I wouldn't have posted 12000 posts on this board otherwise.

Does this mean that Ian is finally admitting he posts more under his sockpuppets than he does under his "real" name?

 

[Garrette]

Sorry, Harlequin. In Ian's defense, what it means is that during the last Great Board Cataclysm and Inexplicable Hiccup, he lost credit for some 6000 posts and was reset to zero.

I don't think he was the only one it happened to.

---

On the OP:

Ian, you're missing Marian's point totally and making comments that don't relate to what was said or what Marian did.

 

[Beleth]

I suggest you read my post again.

Done. Will you answer my question now?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now I don't like skeptics either, but not for the same reason. I certainly don't disapprove of skeptics cautioning people about cold reading and the like. But I do disapprove of them for unthinkingly embracing the modern western Weltanschauung and then foisting this untenable belief system on the rest of us.

So you only dislike skeptics for the things they don't do?

What makes me feel so angry is that other non-skeptics don't understand how utterly ludicrous your belief system is and how it flies in the face of the evidence and reason.

Why do you think that no other non-skeptic has noticed this belief system you've invented for us? Here's a clue. It's because you invented it. Most believers can actually notice reality if its thrust right under their noses, with the exception of the most deluded fundies and you. The deluded fundies can at least say what their imaginary belief system they invent for non-believers is, whereas your lies are just a gibble of words. "Modern western Weltanshauung", forsooth. I suppose your lies would be eaier to expose if you attributed any specific belief to skeptics.

You can dance, Ian, but you can't hide.

You don't know what you're talking about Marian and I profoundly object to you going around and making peoples lives as miserable as possible by asserting that everything they ever treasured and the whole raison d'etre of their existence is utterly devoid of any meaning. You don't know that, you've just been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of the common western metaphysic. You and other skeptics are utterly clueless.

The usual halfwitted lies. I wonder who you're trying to fool?

I like "raison d'etre of their existence", though. Funny. Hands up anyone who knows what "raison d'etre" means. Well done.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate:

Hands up anyone who knows what "raison d'etre" means.

It means the redundant reason for redundantly existing.

It also means Modern Western Weltanshauung.

---

Ian, most people, including most skeptics, do not go round forcing their views on other people. Even "skeptical activism" can and, in my experience usually does, differ from forcing one's opinion.

To respond to the OP: I do very little actively, though I do call in to a local paranormal radio show when I get the chance, I teach my kids skeptical thinking while still allowing them to reach their own conclusions, I approach people I suspect of charlatanism and fraud, I write letters to the editor and to local radio and television shows, I respond to claims from companies like TJTI when they claim to represent a prospective employer, and I go to the occasional forum.

You, with all your intelligence and brainpower, are either the most skillful troll in the history of the internet or you are, in my experience, the saddest case of thought gone awry.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

They don't like being told that we're just meat machines and that everything that we have ever strived towards, everything that we have ever achieved, ultimately means nothing whatsoever.

This has been asked of you many times before so you'll have no difficulty in explaining what the 'ultimate meaning' is? And how you know this meaning? Or will you just repeat that you simply FEEL there MUST be such a thing, without having any clue at all what it's shape or form might be, and without having any proof at all to support this feeling.

They don't like being told that their loved ones have not passed on but have ceased to exist for the whole of eternity, and in a sense they might as well never have existed at all.

How long is eternity, Ian, and what would it mean to 'exist for eternity'?

They really don't want people like you coming along and saying that it is obviously correct that our lives and the Universe are absolutely pointless.

Our lives can be exceedingly meaningful - it's only you that feels that a 'materialist death' marks an end to "meaning".

They don't like it because deep down they feel it might all well be true.

Projecting again, Ian?

You don't know what you're talking about Marian and I profoundly object to you going around and making peoples lives as miserable as possible by asserting that everything they ever treasured and the whole raison d'etre of their existence is utterly devoid of any meaning.

So you object to Marion doing something she doesn't do? Good on you, that will teach her...

Please, just explain the 'ultimate meaning' of 'existing for all eternity'. Have a go - what's the purpose underlying such a concept?

 

[Marian]

I think Ian is just still smarting from the last time I spoke with him on PalTalk (when he and TLN were debating), and he ended up resorting to something like "Because God allows it" as his argument.

As always Ian, evidence of your claims would be a great start. Feel free to supply evidence with all the garbage you said about me too. There isn't any of course, and most people see your posts for what they are, but it's probably good policy to call you out on your bullsh*t in case there are one or two people who are new and still unfamiliar with you.

 

[sackett]

Garrette just said WHAT?

...Ian,...You, with all your intelligence and brainpower... .

Hold it, hold it, hold it! You're addressing Ian, right?

I realize that you're only making an implicit claim that Impossible Ian is brainy, but still -- my god! -- evidence, please!

It's Friday afternoon and Illogical Iain has me on iggy out of sheer terror. Oh well, what's it all mean ultimately?

Gee, I wish he'd tell us.