Amateur Debunker, Or Killjoy?

Well, at least getting one’s nails done has a real world value and effect. It’s also probably not as expensive.

In mom’s case, they essentially robbed her. Well, really she let them rob her of her money through their exploitation of her sad misfortunes, and her silly notions. There are no ghosts. The baby is not trying to communicate with her.

The problem with less problematic superstitions is that they tend to promote a particular line of thinking which then leads to more of the same ignorant beliefs. First it’s scratching your face and spitting, next you’re avoiding cracks, then you tell your SO that he can’t use ‘cursed’ furniture, spending money on psychics, and trying to cure your cancer with homeopathy.

But where are those who protest greatly against minor superstitions such as these? Can you possibly point out an example where someone made a big stink about something of this nature?

I try to amateur-correct people about religion. I do so because I feel it to be for their own good, and for mine.

It depends a lot on the circumstance. In Ellen Cherry’s case, the people going to the fortune teller were having some fun, and she was crapping on them. Nobody in particular was being hurt, and it wasn’t likely to become the same sort of situation as Kinthalis’ mom. Laughing at them served no purpose other than making Ellen feel smarter than her friends.

There was a whole story on this topic in How to Win Friends and Influence People. The author (Dale Carnegie) was at a dinner party and another guest was telling a story, when he asserted that a particular quote was from the Bible. DC knew it wasn’t, it was a Shakespeare quote, and interrupted to correct him. They argued back and forth, eventually deciding that a third party (a well read pastor, IIRC) would settle the matter. The pastor said “it’s from the Bible, continue with your story”. After the fact, DC went to the pastor to argue again, and the pastor said “I know it was from Shakespeare, but all you were doing was embarrassing the guy, and that has no place at a pleasant dinner party.” While trying to be a know it all big shot, Dale just managed to make himself look like a big jerk.

Kinthalis can sit his mom down and talk frankly about how these mediums are phonies and stealing her money, because it’s important. Ellen can talk with her friends if they go down the same road. In either case, mocking them doesn’t do a damn thing except put them on the defensive and make them not like you.

And why did the pastor lie to the gathering, spreading the plague of misinformation? …To slap down DC. He could have given the correct informaion but instead preferred to be a know it all big shot. In my opinion, that just makes him a big jerk.

There are times and places to argue about people unmaliciously spreading and acting on misinformation. In the case given, I might have interrupted to correct him, because I’m a little overzealous with that sort of thing, however, once the guy argued back one time I’d just say “whichever, sorry for the interruption, get on with the story.” It’s one think to casually correct misinformation when you find it, and another to spend time trying to pound the truth into some stubborn unwilling head.

I think if your actions are a reflection of your beliefs, then I will feel comfortable questioning your actions. If they are not a reflection of your beliefs, I will feel comfortable questioning your honesty. If you proselytize your beliefs, then I will feel comfortable questioning both your actions and beliefs, and possibly your honesty, and sanity.

Aside from those cases, mostly I would participate in discussions about your beliefs only as exchanges of views, not judgments of character, or human worth. At least I would if you were as considerate of my beliefs.

Tris

IIRC (and it’s been a long time since I read the book) it was to let the storyteller save face, and go on with the evening. The storyteller was trying to be entertaining and help make for an enjoyable dinner, DC was the interloper butting in, causing confrontation, and ultimately putting the pastor in the position of having to state one person was mistaken. In addition, the point being argued was trivial, it was not a central point of the story, not important to get right, bringing it up only served to ensure that one person looked stupid.

Also, the book is about how to endear yourself to others, the point of this story was that even if you’re right, going out of your way to correct others can make you an unwelcome guest.

All true, but in choosing to end the confrontation with a lie rather than a truth (it was ended either way), for no other reason than to smack down DC, the pastor demonstrated that he too was an ass. Like DC, he discarded something just to make a point he wanted to: DC lost his politeness, the pastor lost his honesty, and in both cases, it only served to ensure that one person looked stupid.

Like I said, I recognize that there are times and places for correcting people, and (even fewer) times and places to fight in defense of your correction. So yes, DC was an ass. But the preacher was a lying ass.

I have to disagree. At that point someone was going to look stupid – no other way around it. If the point of the conversation was to argue the source of the quote, then the truth would be a good thing. But the effect of DC’s hijack was to rob the storyteller of social value, which is impolite. The pastor simply restored it. Since DC was impolite I don’t have a problem with him taking a little social value hit.

On a larger scale, imagine going to a standup comedy club. The comic is building a routine so that he can deliver the the big payoff a few sentences down the line. Somewhere in the building of it he mentions something about lemmings jumping off of cliffs. Yes, you would be correct to stand up and debunk that myth right then and there. But you’d be a jerk to do it. The point of going to such a venue is not to shine the light of accuracy on the survial instincts of small mammals, it’s to laugh and have a good time.

There are times to just let it go.

If the pastor supported DC, his interruption would have been vindicated, he wouldn’t have appreciated his social gaffe, and the story would never have made it into the book. Dale learned something from the pastor’s choice, something more important than where a particular quote is from, he learned how to be a more pleasant person.

“DC, your interruption was factually correct, but neither I nor anyone else here appreciates that you chose to so rudely interrupt his story to give it. Sir, please continue with your story.”

'Nuff said.

That works too, but it’s still calling out the storyteller, so still a little rude.

The larger issue here is that people get attached to and invested in their beliefs. The mere fact of saying that something is true ties it to your identity. It shouldn’t, but for most people it does. When someone attacks your beliefs, it can feel like they are attacking you. That’s why people get so defensive.

Well, the storyteller was wrong, ergo, by definition, deserving of a certain amount of correction. The main upside to the alternative I presented is that it presents an idealized world where the preacher doesn’t see casually lying and propogating falsehoods to a group (from a position of authority, no less) as a natural method for teaching someone a lesson in behavior.

(Of course, as far as I can tell that’s the standard modus operandi of preachers, but still.)

This is absolutely true, and the more attached to a particular belief a person is, the more defensive they get when you challenge them. Ergo, you don’t dive in and lambast somebody’s religion unless you’re either in a forum approriate for such a challenge, or you don’t mind people being mad at you. Though, I personally wouldn’t expect the attribution of a quote to be such a hot-button issue, so I might make such a challenge, although as I said I wouldn’t engage in an exchange of arguments over the issue.

(Though, I have been known to correct grammar and spelling, even though I know people hate that, so what the hey, maybe I do enjoy being the assholish know-it-all. Oh well.)

You know, I don’t think that a lot of people who go to a psychic for fun actually believe in the psychic’s powers. Especially if they’re going in a group (and particularly a group of women looking for entertainment).

They are looking for the same kind of entertainment I get from seeing a great horror movie. Of course the things in the horror movie aren’t real, but I get a great deal of entertainment from temporarily suspending reality and pretending it’s real enough to get behind. Equally, many of my friends who have used Ouija boards, gone ghost hunting, or been to a psychic are just having “fun”.

So people who criticize them for doing those kinds of things are exactly the same kind of people who, during a movie, talk incessantly about how there’s NO WAY a spaceship like that could work; or how there’s NO WAY ghosts really exist because of blah, blah, blah.

People who do this in non-serious situations are killjoys.

What makes you think that ? Every poll I can recall reading shows that an awful lot of people take this stuff seriously.

Every time you publicly correct someone who has not asked you for that service, you are demonstrating that your own self image as an authority is more valuable to you than a public reputation as a courteous person. Now, that may be exactly what you intended to do, in which case, you will be a very lonely person who gets snubbed a lot. You might not understand why, but that’s ok, you know everything else, so what the hell.

Tris

Are you confusing “a lot” with “most”? Because I’m not.

Okay everybody, I think maybe part of the problem here is that terms for “woo-woo stuff” vary widely and often don’t have set standard definitions.

Kinthalis, I didn’t mean to contradict you; I tried to make it clear that I completely support your viewpoint by saying “fortuneteller” (what Ellen Cherry said) instead of “psychic” (what you said). Because to me, a “fortuneteller” is a Gypsy or semi-Gypsy who reads your palm, or maybe reads Tarot cards or possibly tealeaves. A “psychic”, on the other hand, seldom has any roots in an ethnic or cultural tradition, is not constrained by conventional expectations with regard to the actual services rendered, and in short, while they may be genuine, are just as likely to be either straight-up phony or have delusions of grandeur with respect to their “gift”.

I very much doubt that many genuine psychics can be found working for the “Psychic Friends Network”. On the other hand, outrageously conservative (IMHO) people like Ronald & Nancy Reagan and Tony Blair are known to have consulted astrologers regularly, astrology being arguably a form of “fortunetelling”.

To me, a fortuneteller is expected to utilize some conventional form of divination and then assay the results in order to provide you with an opinion as to likely outcomes to a given course of action, or to events left as they are. They may simply make uncomplicated predictions about your future in terms of “destiny” or what have you. In either case, the information thus relayed may be construed, strictly speaking, as “advice”. But it is finite in scope and term; and if they are way off-base, you just don’t go back. Honestly, I don’t see a fortuneteller as someone you go to but once in awhile anyway – it’d be, to me, sort of like having an MRI and then going back for a second opinion. You don’t need it unless something really changes.

And finally, to clarify what I said about insistent debunkers possibly having other issues at work; and to answer (sort of) Czarcasm’s question with respect to an example of someone making a big stink over a minor superstition of someone else’s:

I like Shai’tan. (The Doper, not the Well-Known Adversary.) He is clever and witty and strikes me as fair most of the time. So it is with all due respect that I say, I don’t think his sense of scandalized shock (partially in jest perhaps though it is) would have been the same if the table in question was, say, a really ugly avocado-green pedestal jobbie from the suburbs of the 70’s that someone else wanted his wife to keep, and he hated the table, and she insisted that she wouldn’t have it because of the (alleged) hex-putting history of its former owner.

I suspect that in that situation it is possible that instead he might have admired her for coming up with a relatively unassailable (i.e., subjective and personal) excuse to toss the thing.

Here’s a poll from 2005:

According to the same poll, 55% believe in “psychic healing,” 42% believe in demonic possession and 24% believe aliens have visited the earth.

Now that 41% that believes in psychics is the number of people in the population at large and is not a sampling of only those individuals who go to psychics. I believe that the ratio of believers among thos who actually patronize psychics would be much higher and that those who do so on a regular basis (not just once on a lark) would be near 100%.

I wonder how many real skeptics ever go to psychics. I think there are people who say they don’t believe it but are intrigued anyway and just don’t want to admit it. For people like me, there is no intrigue because we KNOW it’s a scam and we understand that there is no entertainment value in forking over a twenty to listen to someone cold read us like we’re credulous rubes. I think of those people as con artists and I find their acts insulting. When a “psychic” is reading your palm or your mind or channeling your Aunt Harriet, they’re doing it because they think you’re stupid and that they can scam you out of more cash. I don’t see why anyone who really KNOWS what’s going on would find that entertaining, so I’m inclined to believe that most people who go (even on a lark) at least think there MIGHT be something to it and even think there MIGHT be something to it shows a lack of critical thought.

How many people ever think a stage magician even MIGHT be really doing magic? All psychic acts are is stage magic.

That’s rather culturally imperialistic. There are social situations and people to whom accuracy matters for than some forced myth of social equality being preserved.

By claiming introducing accuracy is about self-image as an authority, you immediately demonize and reduce such a “rude” person to the point you can mock them- when that is not necessarily the case.

This is not to say that DC should have rudely interrupted. Depending on situation- say, if the speaker was questioned and responded “I think it’s from the Bible” and someone else volunteers “Shakespeare”, that may be allright, depending on the people involved. If it’s essential to the story, let the story conclude and then address it. Hijacking conversation- seizing control- is the issue, not whether it’s “rude to be a know-it-all.”