Inherent reactions to skepticism?

[ygolo]

I think we have all experienced being skeptical of something. I could be wrong, of course.

Think back to something you were skeptical about:
How did people react to you being skeptical of that something?

• Did they react by saying you were too close minded?
• Did they accuse you of nit picking?
• Did they accuse you of feeling superior to them?
• Other things?

How much of these reactions do you believe are intrinsically the reaction to a skeptic by a non-skeptic?

How much of these reactions comes from me/you, the skeptic in these scenario, being actually closed minded, nit-picky, or feeling superior to the non-skeptic?


Potential of seeds to remind you of times you've been skeptical:
Folk remedies, superstitions, cryptozoological entities, get rich quick schemes, cults, main stream religions, conspiracy theories, urban legends, older myths, astrology, typology

Have you pulled off being skeptical of these things without seeming closed minded, nit-picky, or superior to a non-skeptic?

How did you accomplish this?

 

[WhoCares]

I am skeptical of humanity. So far I've been accused of being unrealistic and idealistic because I do not share the common view of humanity. They accused me of blindness by not being able to see what they see. I was also accused of being too focused on the negatives which even though they admitted existed they downplayed their importance.

The paralells of skepticism to any say mystical subject are vivid. There is the denial of what you see or know as your perspective, then comes the character assassination where it is intimated that you suffer from a deficiency or flaw. There are the true believers who point out all the aspects of their faith in a very general way, like the acts of altruism the subject is capable of and the potential while glossing over the details of where it falls short. And there are a few who admit to the flaws of the subject while still holding to their belief.

I do not believe I have suceeded in communicating my skepticism on this sujbect. I believe I only succeeded in convincing others I have the deficiencies claimed. But I also think that is a natural consequence of challenging belief. If someone is convinced of the beliefs rightness, they will cling tighter to it in the face of challenge. Others who share your skepticism on some level, even a tiny amount are willing to entertain the ideas, even if they ultimately reject them.

How much of that is the skeptic and how much the believer? I have to conclude they are both to the measure of their conviction. Since a skeptic is not a non-believer, he is a believer in something else, even if that something else is just the possibility of an alternative. So what you have is two believers of incongrous beliefs pushing against each other. The more entrenched the belief, the greater the assertion. For this reason I tend to think those of less fixed dispositions to be the better skeptic since they will allow for the paradox of incongrous beliefs to be both correct on some level. They therefore have a better chance of coming off in constructive ways and opening a discussion rather than a pissing match.

 

[ygolo]

I am skeptical of humanity. So far I've been accused of being unrealistic and idealistic because I do not share the common view of humanity. They accused me of blindness by not being able to see what they see. I was also accused of being too focused on the negatives which even though they admitted existed they downplayed their importance.

The paralells of skepticism to any say mystical subject are vivid. There is the denial of what you see or know as your perspective, then comes the character assassination where it is intimated that you suffer from a deficiency or flaw. There are the true believers who point out all the aspects of their faith in a very general way, like the acts of altruism the subject is capable of and the potential while glossing over the details of where it falls short. And there are a few who admit to the flaws of the subject while still holding to their belief.

I do not believe I have suceeded in communicating my skepticism on this sujbect. I believe I only succeeded in convincing others I have the deficiencies claimed. But I also think that is a natural consequence of challenging belief. If someone is convinced of the beliefs rightness, they will cling tighter to it in the face of challenge. Others who share your skepticism on some level, even a tiny amount are willing to entertain the ideas, even if they ultimately reject them.

Thanks for replying. I think the bar of having found a way to relay skepticism without incurring some of those consequences was too high.

I am mainly wondering if this phenomenon is inherent in being skeptical and/or a believer of something. For instance, I believe that climate change is real and man made, and I get a little irritated at skeptics of this...unless they have a good deal of reliable evidence. But I do tend to have a knee-jerk reaction of having my eyes glaze over before evidence is presented.

I think the point you made about skeptics often being believers in something else is a good one.

How much of that is the skeptic and how much the believer? I have to conclude they are both to the measure of their conviction. Since a skeptic is not a non-believer, he is a believer in something else, even if that something else is just the possibility of an alternative. So what you have is two believers of incongrous beliefs pushing against each other. The more entrenched the belief, the greater the assertion. For this reason I tend to think those of less fixed dispositions to be the better skeptic since they will allow for the paradox of incongrous beliefs to be both correct on some level. They therefore have a better chance of coming off in constructive ways and opening a discussion rather than a pissing match.

I think, here you quickly narrowed in on the pertinent ideas, especially the statement I emphasized in bold.

The question that pops up for me is: When ought one be entrenched vs. not? After all, there is no such thing as a completely open mind. A mind that accepts nothing and rejects nothing makes no distinctions, and has no direction. Nihilism seems like the natural consequence of trying to remain open to everything.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Skepticism, in all forms, is a sign of rationality, for it deems that some information might not be trustworthy or reliable. I have found that I am most skeptical of ideas that are formulated first and then evidenced later (as my Sherlock Holmes quote details).

When I've told somebody I was skeptical of their plan, they seemed to regard me as ignorant or in some cases non-compliant, i.e. "You won't believe this because it was my idea.", or "You just can't open your eyes now can you?", to which I reply to the latter of which, "My eyes are open. Your eyes are glazed."

I would assume that these reactions are based on the fact that if rational skepticism is produced by a party, then there isn't sufficient evidence on the part of the non-skeptic and they are thus reliant on phrases such as the ones above.

When I hear a skeptical theory, I approach it as open minded as possible, but that open-mindedness carries with it the views of other affiliations. As soon as I see something preposterous or unbased, I immediately become skeptical of all points related to it.

 

[Zarathustra]

.

Skepticism <<<<<<< Critical Thinking >>>>>>> Dogmatism​

 

[Ginkgo]

I think fierce skepticism is simply dogmatism masquerading as doubt.

 

[ygolo]

.

Skepticism <<<<<<< Critical Thinking >>>>>>> Dogmatism​

I think fierce skepticism is simply dogmatism masquerading as doubt.

Can you guys elaborate on what you mean?

 

[Ginkgo]

Can you guys elaborate on what you mean?

Can't speak for Zara, though I'm pretty sure I know where he's coming from.

I think that persistent skepticism, more often than not, occurs when someone is unable to let go of what they believe to be true. For instance, many who disbelieve in ghosts do so because they already subscribe to the thought that the world is purely naturalistic.

Critical thinking demands that one literally entertains two (or more) contrary thoughts at the same time, measuring the worth and substance of both, until they come to a learned conclusion. At the end of the day, critical thinking always entails that you've actually learned and digested something about someone else's perspective, even if you don't agree with it. And, in doing so, you may find that the stance your previously held is more justified than you thought.

 

[ygolo]

Can't speak for Zara, though I'm pretty sure I know where he's coming from.

I think that persistent skepticism, more often than not, occurs when someone is unable to let go of what they believe to be true. For instance, many who disbelieve in ghosts do so because they already subscribe to the thought that the world is purely naturalistic.

Critical thinking demands that one literally entertains two (or more) contrary thoughts at the same time, measuring the worth and substance of both, until they come to a learned conclusion. At the end of the day, critical thinking always entails that you've actually learned and digested something about someone else's perspective, even if you don't agree with it. And, in doing so, you may find that the stance your previously held is more justified than you thought.

Indeed. But this process you talk about requires a great deal of time.

If the notion being presented just doesn't carry enough reward for undertaking that process, would you still fault the skeptic?

For instance, let's take the notion of ghosts.

To me, the way I answer whether or not I believe in ghosts depends on the what a person means by the word "ghost". No doubt a great many places are haunted by the ghosts of their past influences. But, in this statement, I am using the word "ghost" as almost a synonym for "influence." It is meant symbolically or metaphorically.

I believe the world of symbols and metaphors has a different sort of reality that I consider quite legitimate. But it is an entirely different, and dare I say, "impractical" reality than what I usually associate with "reality."

Take again, the notion of ghosts:
If someone were to say they believe in the corporeal presence of ectoplasmic entities that contain the consciousness of former human beings, then I am unlikely to take the time to investigate this with rigor of an idea that I would find relevant.

 

[Anna Jorovic]

I've always been quite skeptical about everything, so I'm not sure how to answer the questions.

 

[ygolo]

I've always been quite skeptical about everything, so I'm not sure how to answer the questions.

What have been your experiences regarding how people respond to your skepticism?

 

[Anna Jorovic]

What have been your experiences regarding how people respond to your skepticism?

They usually just tell me I think too much.

 

[ygolo]

They usually just tell me I think too much.

You're young, I suppose. People get less polite as the skeptics get older.

But in case you express your skepticism in ways that people respond to well. How do you generally express it?

 

[Anna Jorovic]

You're young, I suppose. People get less polite as the skeptics get older.

But in case you express your skepticism in ways that people respond to well. How do you generally express it?

I tend to either persuade them, and change the way they see the world, or baffle them and annoy them.

But I don't really care what other people believe (I find it interesting to learn about people's ideas, but it doesn't affect my beliefs - at least not until I've thought them through myself and improved the way their ideas are expressed). My skepticism is focused mainly on questioning my own views.

 

[RaptorWizard]

.

Skepticism <<<<<<< Critical Thinking >>>>>>> Dogmatism​

Rationalism <<<<<<<<<<<<< Epic Fantasies Flowing with Meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empiricism

​

 

[ygolo]

I tend to either persuade them, and change the way they see the world, or baffle them and annoy them.

But I don't really care what other people believe (I find it interesting to learn about people's ideas, but it doesn't affect my beliefs - at least not until I've thought them through myself and improved the way their ideas are expressed). My skepticism is focused mainly on questioning my own views.

Ah. A true scholar. Hats off.

 

[Zarathustra]

Can you guys elaborate on what you mean?

Yes.

I think fierce skepticism is simply dogmatism masquerading as doubt.

This isn't too far off from what I would say.

This would be sentence 3 out of 4 (or so) of the way I'd put it.

Indeed. But this process you talk about requires a great deal of time.

This reminds me of a quote I like: "skepticism is the chastity of the modern mind."

If the notion being presented just doesn't carry enough reward for undertaking that process, would you still fault the skeptic?

And who determines whether it carries enough reward?

Perhaps this is one reason you get into trouble with other people.

You seem to have made a tacit value judgment here about a non-existent hypothetical, and already have devalued it before it even came into existence.

If this is your default position, or this is at least how you come off from the get-go, it would be understandable why you get a bad reaction.

Your default position would be "what you find valuable isn't valuable enough for me to listen to you".

Perhaps why Nardi found Ti doms to be the worst listeners.

 

[ygolo]

Yes.



This isn't too far off from what I would say.

This would be sentence 3 out of 4 (or so) of the way I'd put it.

What would be the complete way you would put it?

This reminds me of a quote I like: "skepticism is the chastity of the modern mind."

The similar quote about skepticism and chastity I came across was by George Santayana
"Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness."

I know Santayana was a naturalist and a moral relativist (sort of), but I'm not sure if I am thinking of the same thing you were.

And who determines whether it carries enough reward?

Perhaps this is one reason you get into trouble with other people.

You seem to have made a tacit value judgment here about a non-existent hypothetical, and already have devalued it before it even came into existence.

If this is your default position, or this is at least how you come off from the get-go, it would be understandable why you get a bad reaction.

Your default position would be "what you find valuable isn't valuable enough for me to listen to you".

Are you talking about me personally, or a hypothetical skeptic?

I think the person choosing to spend his/her time gets to choose how to do it.

Also, what are your expectations here? I spent four years trying to see things as an Evangelical Christian. God, for me, is an important thing. Would you expect me to spend similar effort in search of ghosts, the Yeti, or Bigfoot?

Would you, for instance, spend four years living as an ardent skeptic to see the value in modern skepticism as an attitude as an adult? Or are you currently too skeptical of skepticism?

Perhaps why Nardi found Ti doms to be the worst listeners.

Well, suppose this pattern turns out to be true, and for larger groups.

What is it that you expect Ti doms to do? Not be Ti doms? Is that fair?

 

[Ginkgo]

If the notion being presented just doesn't carry enough reward for undertaking that process, would you still fault the skeptic?

Not necessarily. The process of belief is intensely personal.

If I shouted someone down for their beliefs, then it would just be a power play. In an academic atmosphere, I think it would be bad form to insist that someone believe something just because you wanted them to. It shows a lack of respect and a disregard for the fundamental nature of decent education. Which is why those who expect others to change for them (or in more extreme cases, expect humanity to undergo some wild transformation of monumental scope) tend to find themselves disappointed as shit.

 

[Zarathustra]

What would be the complete way you would put it?

That in the realm of belief, you have skepticism on one side, and dogmatism on the other.

Skepticism represents the side of nothingness, emptiness, zero.

Dogmatism, on the other hand, represents somethingness, fullness (including of shit), one.

Somewhere between the two, you have Critical Thinking, which is neither fully skeptical, nor fully dogmatic, but does have some of both.

Critical Thinking is (somewhat) dogmatic in its commitment to keep an open mind, but (somewhat) skeptical in its desire to not simply believe everything.

It gives ideas a full hearing, respects what cannot be known, and how that affects the various positions on the issue, and casts its judgment when it feels it appropriate/necessary, knowing the limitations present in the situation.

Critical Thinking, not skepticism or dogmatism, should be the goal of the good mind.

The similar quote about skepticism and chastity I came across was by George Santayana
"Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness."

Thank you for posting.

I actually originally posted "chastity of the intellect", but then changed it.

I couldn't remember who the original author was - I read it via another author - and the piece in which I read it had to do with skepticism and the modern mind.

I know Santayana was a naturalist and a moral relativist (sort of), but I'm not sure if I am thinking of the same thing you were.

I've never directly studied him - only read his quotes when other authors have used them.

Well, maybe one essay, actually.

I tend to like what he writes - he seems very wise and well-versed - though he comes off as rather inert.

Are you talking about me personally, or a hypothetical skeptic?

Both? Perhaps.

I was trying to offer you potential insight, based on what you'd written.

I think the person choosing to spend his/her time gets to choose how to do it.

That's fine.

But if embedded in their behavior is the tacit assumption that what the other person values is not valuable enough for one to sit, listen to, and consider, then one should not be surprised when the other does not respond well to them in kind.

Also, what are your expectations here?

Expectations?

I'm not sure I have any...

I spent four years trying to see things as an Evangelical Christian. God, for me, is an important thing. Would you expect me to spend similar effort in search of ghosts, the Yeti, or Bigfoot?

I think God is the most important of all questions, so no.

Ghosts I would not necessarily put in the same bucket as Bigfoot or the Yeti.

One need not put significant effort into researching these things, but could still keep an open mind to them (without necessarily believing in them, and even finding them highly unlikely [as I certainly do with Bigfoot, to a {very} slightly lesser extent the Yeti, and to a lesser extent ghosts {per your explanation, et al, the idea of ghosts/spirits has more room for interpretation, as well as more avenues for possibility (if one is truly open-minded about considering those possibilities)}]).

Would you, for instance, spend four years living as an ardent skeptic to see the value in modern skepticism as an attitude as an adult?
Or are you currently too skeptical of skepticism?

I have already done so.

What I discovered is that pure skepticism is its own form of dogmatism, and that the two "opposites" are actually the same in one crucial way: they are equally close-minded.

In between those two poles, right in the middle, is maximum open-mindedness (which actually includes openness to the possibility of closing one's mind at some point [i.e., the notion that, after considering all relevant information, one can actually make an informed judgment that can be correct; i.e., not simply the shallow/false "open-mindedness" of the typical liberal, post-modernist, hippy variety]), which both listens to the relevant information, but also takes a critical view of it (note: not skeptical, but critical [the difference between the two being that one - criticality - comes from a place of genuine open-mindedness, whereas, the other - skepticism - does not {its grounding is actually in close-mindedness (just like dogmatism)}]).

Well, suppose this pattern turns out to be true, and for larger groups.

What is it that you expect Ti doms to do? Not be Ti doms? Is that fair?

No, they should continue to be Ti doms.

They simply should cease to be Ti reets.

This means recognizing the limitation and narrowness of their ego block's/fixation's lens, and to eliminate the problems associated with such narrow and limited fixation.

Awareness -> Acceptance -> Action

Become aware of the problematic ego fixation (if, indeed, it does exist).

Accept that this is the current state of affairs, who you currently are, where you currently reside.

Then act to change, to overcome the problematic elements of one's fixation.

***

Then the cycle repeats itself.

What new awareness must one achieve next time around?

(In addition to the remembering of what it learned last time.)

(This is, in essence, a *deepening* of the awareness.)

What are the problematic elements of your fixation?

How could these problematic aspects be remedied?

What new perspective(s) should you assimilate?

How does this relate to your shadow?