Lessons of SnakeSpirit: The burden of patience is on the majority.

[E-Sabbath]

If you’ve noticed, Aeschines, I havn’t said “This can’t be true” about things. I have simply stated that they have not been displayed, or they can not be repeated. It may be true that your Uncle Fred suddenly, once, displayed the ability to levitate, and spent the afternoon floating exactly three inches above his couch. But nobody saw it, and nobody knows how it happened. Therefore, it is a matter of faith. It can’t be repeated, it can’t be measured, it can’t be sampled, and thus, it must be filed under “Ancedotal, unexplained.” If many people are all discovering abilities to fly for an afternoon… well, that’s something worth measuring. If one person can do it repeatably, hey, measure it. But any single incident can not make a pattern.

As always, I am hopeful, but, occasionally, the sheer persistance of a concept, coupled with the lack of positive results when examined, allow me to suggest, with, say, a margin of error less than one tenth of a percent, that certain things are true. Such as, ‘all the people who claim to speak to the dead are faking it.’ This is not strictly true, but it has yet to be countered in any measurable way. I have given up significant hope of finding a reliable way to speak with the dead. It certainly would be nice, but if, for example, Houdini couldn’t do it, and he certainly was motivated… it would have been the greatest escape ever… I suggest that it would require significantly extraordinary evidence to suggest it true.

Not the key word of ‘when examined.’ I know you know the concept of hot and cold reading as well as I do. (Hot reading is when you have the ability to research your subject beforehand)

[TVeblen]

@Aeschines

… Those who have said, “I can’t wait until you are banned,” or “I wish that you were banned,” or “I can’t believe you haven’t been banned yet,” to me have manifested an astounding level of pettiness, negativity, and immaturity. I am genuinely surprised that the mods do not crack down on that kind of talk, as it amounts to campaigning for someone to be banned, and, to say the least, is the best evidence possible for the negative atmosphere of the board.

FWIW, snipes like that generally strike most readers as petty, negative and immature, mods included. In fact they illuminate the writers’ weak spots with an unflattering light. Certainly not pleasant, though.
A few caveats here:

1. We provide a venue for discussions about pretty much anything. It’s not unusual for people get hot, bothered and lathered up over an amazing array of topics. The paranormal is just one of many: politics, religion, child rearing, etc. Heck, we’ve had extended humdinger brawls over circumscision. Choose yer poison, no? Unfortunately there isn’t a magical “right answer” for any of them, so the best we can hope is for people to learn while exploring their differences.

2. Some folks lose perspective at times. The passion of their convictions swamps the reality that other people won’t or don’t agree, and never will. How a poster handles that reflects on him/her and no one else. In our experience Dopers are fully intelligent enough to analyse discussions for themselves. It’s not unusual for them to chime in, often very kindly, with advice to just step away for a while when a poster gets over-wrought. There’s often valuable perspective, and genuine concern, from Dopers if a poster seems to be going atypically off the rails. But ultimately each poster is responsible for what they write here.

3. We watch meltdowns with a careful eye and often give feedback privately as well. What we don’t do is intefere officially to slant or settle an argument. It’s a murky line sometimes and I’m the last to say we have perfect wisdom about the “right” way to handle it. It’s particularly touchy with Pittings because that’s where Dopers have more latitude to hash things out. I disagree that the process of exploring how to handle sharp, deep differences of opinion and belief doesn’t fight ignorance too.

4. That process can be very rough at times, for anybody. Hell, it’s wrenching to really examine beliefs, much less pry open head room for conflicting ones. We understand the impulse to “end” an argument by demanding authority–us, in this case–call it on account of technicalities or just plain kick out the opponent. But we take a very dim view of it nonetheless. Understandable? Yes. Gonna work? No. Individual posters have the freedom–and responsibility–to a.) choose their arguments and b.) how to handle themselves in them.
   In less highfalutin’ terms, what ya give is usually pretty much what ya get back. We don’t protect posters against the consequences of their own actions. Anyone who picks an outright brawl shouldn’t come crying to us when they get cuffed around. Plenty of even Pit threads turn out to be remarkably civil, insightful discussions–but that’s usually determined by how posters handle themselves.

Veb

[Aeschines]

@glee

I see the point of this thread, Aeschines, but it’s certainly not as one-sided as you suggest.

I don’t think it’s one-sided, either. SnakeSpirit behaved poorly and so did others. I think the OP is saying that the “others” have responsibilities of their own.
And these come into play not only when dealing with such egregious behavior as occurred during SS’s flameout, but during the normal course of “paranormal” discussions.

I was naturally peeved, and threw in some insults of my own.
However when you came in politely during the thread, I was courteous back.

I think the vast majority of us are like that.

The problem isn’t just certain posters who behave more poorly than others but the dynamic of the whole group and the policies and atmosphere of the board. Often it may be the case that each poster is not being so harsh on his own, but the aggregate affect is quite stunning to the one affected. Everyone but him leaves the thread thinking, not entirely without justification, that he did nothing too terrible.

I think what bugs people here is that on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, we get lots of interesting claims, followed by a complete lack of cites when challenged.
And this happens repeatedly.

I’ve had it both ways. I’ve given cites and gotten into interesting discussions about statistics and whatnot, and I’ve given cites that are blown off as irrelevent, etc., with a dollop of derision on top. If someone doesn’t give a cite where one is required, I suggest that one say, “A cite is required to back this up.” And if they don’t give it, so what? The skeptics are going to outnumber such a person anyway.

And it is infuriating when the only support for the proposition, which challenges the well-supported current scientific knowledge, is ‘because I say so’.

Why get furious?

This theory is silly. It is a :wally .

And you run the risk of having the person interpret that “putz” differently than you do. Devilsknew’s account seems pretty accurate; it is understandable that he thought the “putz” was aimed at him.

[glee]

@Aeschines

I think part of the problem is that we view truth and belief in different terms. For one thing, I believe there are many different worlds layered on on another. This world of matter has quite strict, orderly rules that do not permit the easy perception of other worlds–but sometimes we get a glimpse. And we live in many worlds at once. Now I suspect in some of those worlds I can see myself in this world quite clearly, even though in this world I cannot see myself in the other world.

So when a person tells me she’s seen angels or met Jesus or what have you, I don’t think, “That can’t be true!” It could have been experienced in the world of dreams: they are an interesting, impermanent reality. It could have been in a world overlapping this one, tangential to it for a brief moment. Or she might just be nuts. How should I know?

I’ve experienced these other worlds. I’ve dream dreams, dreams that seemed more than dreams, and then stuff that definitely wasn’t dreams. They are all experiences; all true. So you say, “It’s just in your head, and that’s not real.” Fine, it’s just in my head. No problem! But, at the end of the day, if that reality holds up for me in a satisfactory way, what makes it any less real?

But there are also different worlds right here in the physical domain. I’ve lived in Japan for over 8 years. It’s a different world than the US. Now you say, That’s just in the cultural and mental dimension. True! But it’s still different.

I read a neat quote once, or maybe it was a teacher that told me this. When someone says something, try thinking, “In what way can what this person is saying be true?” It’s a neat perspective.

I can assure you that sceptics have no problem thinking that any theory can be true.

When I was a lad, my parents took me to Church. For many years I listened to Christian teaching. I embraced many of the social teachings of Jesus, particularly ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Clearly the best way to behave in society, even if you are not religious.
However doubts did start to creep in.
Why were there so many sects and beliefs within Christianity, some contradictory?
Why was the early Bible full of stuff about Judaism, yet that religion did not accept
Jesus as the Son of God?
Why was there no evidence that the Bible was literal (age of Earth, the Flood)?
Why did some Christians say that if you gave them enough money, they would pray and God would act, while others said you could not ask God for things through prayer?

OK, I don’t want to hijack the thread into religion!

Suffice to say that I won the Religious Knowledge prize at School, but became an atheist. Because there is no evidence of any God (and my Sunday School teacher agreed - he said it’s all a matter of faith).

Now I spent years investigating religion. It is important.
I am happy to hear any theory. Just give me something to back it up.

Take two theories published here:

1, You say you’ve experienced other worlds.

Fine. I read Science Fiction. There are plenty of ways this could happen.
But now for the crunch.

How do you know this happens?
Does this knowledge of yours affect this world in any way?
Can you make predictions, or achieve anything at all because of your experience?
If there is no way anyone else can tell you are observing other worlds, how do you know it is happening?

2. Devilsnew says that lottery winners are showing a predictive ability.
   I have already shown that if this ability did not exist, then lottery wins would happen exactly as they do now.
   Do you agree with that?

If so, how can we have any confidence in this theory?

[Aeschines]

Thank you for the post, TVeblen. I’m sure armchair quarterbacking is nothing compared to the real thing.

A lot of people seem to think that the cool-off-type banning would be an improvement. And I think that genuine, train-wreck, hopeless threads like the glee and Ekers pittings should be shut down. I mean, that stuff was just beyond, you know? But I agree with most of what you say. Very reasonable.

[E-Sabbath]

Hey, Veb, thanks for the perspective. It’s a valuable insight into how this place works. And I want to thank you for sharing it with us.

[Aeschines]

@glee

Now I spent years investigating religion. It is important.
I am happy to hear any theory. Just give me something to back it up.

Take two theories published here:

1, You say you’ve experienced other worlds.

Yes.

Fine. I read Science Fiction. There are plenty of ways this could happen.
But now for the crunch.

How do you know this happens?
[/quote]

It depends on the world. I’ll give you an example, a fun one. I’m fluent in Japanese. I can read at a level quite far above the native level (in several types of Japanese; there are so many…). At any rate, sometimes I look at a Japanese book and think, I can’t fuckin’ believe I can read this. I know how it came about: I remember the pain of studying 12 hours a day for months on end to achieve it. But the effect is now–I’m there. I have access to a world that most Americans do not.

To you, perhaps, the example is both superficial yet substantial. No, there’s not a damn “paranormal” thing about it. But it is like magic and amazing all the same. And it is a genuinely concrete world-like dividing line between myself and, say, my sister, who knows only a few words.

Another example is music. I used to play oboe and cello and still play harp (the mouth kind) a bit. I read music and understand bits and pieces. But that’s really a world that does border on the mystical. Dogs and cats don’t understand music. A pooch could not identify a late Beethoven quartet. Yes, music exists in the world of the mind, and it too seems “normal” because it’s all around us. But there it is.

Now, what if only a few people had dreams or only a few people could create and understand melodies? These things too could seem like “paranormal” or doubtful phenomena. I’m believe that there is a gradation of phenomena from in-your-face to very-very-hard-to-pin-down. Some stuff can be both at once. The powers of idiot savants are concrete, undeniable, but we still have no explanation for them. We say, Ah the brain does it! True, perhaps, but superficial.

I don’t distinguish between normal and “paranormal,” and that’s why I put quotes on the latter word.

Does this knowledge of yours affect this world in any way?
Can you make predictions, or achieve anything at all because of your experience?
If there is no way anyone else can tell you are observing other worlds, how do you know it is happening?

You probably won’t accept my “world of music,” etc., as being really different worlds. My other experiences of those really different places have involved my catching glimpses in meditation, dreams, etc. If you wish to label these as “only in my head,” that’s fine with me. I don’t think they produce any of the kind of information that you requested above. I am not a powerful psychic or medium. Those are the people who, they claim, can consistently visit elsewhere and bring back useful information.

2. Devilsnew says that lottery winners are showing a predictive ability.
   I have already shown that if this ability did not exist, then lottery wins would happen exactly as they do now.
   Do you agree with that?

If so, how can we have any confidence in this theory?

No comment. I’m willing to elucidate my own thought process for the sake of greater mutual understanding between New Agers and skeptics, but I’m unwilling any more to argue specific claims.

[Aeschines]

I thought of another example in which new information might have been gotten–by me, just for me, but it was edifying.

I had a very realistic dream–one of those dreams I end up considering to be more than a dream. The last image was of two puppies swimming in a kind of cistern or bird bath. Now their coats had a kind of greenish cast to them, but it wasn’t a normal color. I can’t describe it, just as one couldn’t really describe red to a blind person. But it was almost as if the color had an additional dimension, a kind of 3D quality to it. And the actual green itself might have been a new color in the spectrum.

Pidgeons and other birds are said to experience colors in four dimensions, instead of just the three that we do IIRC. I wondered if this wasn’t a similar experience.

All just my imagination? Maybe, maybe not. But this is the kind of thing I don’t feel the need to just explain away or attach a convenient label to.

[Munch]

Why the fuck are we discussing paranormal experiences in a Pit thread completely not devoted to that subject, when there already are several threads (including in the Pit) on that subject? **SnakeSpirit ** and his banning were a lot of things, none of those being an out-of-body experience.

[Aeschines]

@Munch

Why the fuck are we discussing paranormal experiences in a Pit thread completely not devoted to that subject, when there already are several threads (including in the Pit) on that subject? **SnakeSpirit ** and his banning were a lot of things, none of those being an out-of-body experience.

Hey, we’re back on track.

Your post an example of rudness, although I suspect you’re joking.

[Marley23]

@Aeschines

Why just not respond?

(I’m assuming you mean ‘why not’) The answer is because if somebody insults me online and makes me angry, I see no reason not to vent my frustration at its source. This isn’t productive and I’m not pretending it is, but it’s the most sensible thing for me to do on a personal level. Better to vent and have done with it than be undirectedly mad all day.

I originally intended this to be a short post. I don’t mean to harp just on SnakeSpirit too much, Aeschines, I just wanted to back up my assessment of the guy. Which doesn’t invalidate the broader questions being asked here but, well, I was going to link to one post as a joke and once I got going with this it seemed dumb to stop. Just read his very first posts to GD and I think you’ll see he was sowing the seeds of his banning from Day One. It’s almost a smorgasbord, and yeah, each link goes to a different post. Topics include

Comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany… help with spelling and grammar (very polite)… questions about patriotism… fifth-grade educations… still more spelling help, IQ test estimates, and pretty colors… very helpful large red type… the first mental health post… more pretty colors and more Hitler… FUN!.. some concern for the young at heart… big giant fonts… crazy royalty… children, and a solemn vow… concern for others, followed dramatically by a phony apology and, after all that, whaddaya do for an encore? Junior Modding!

All that in the span of less than three pages. And looking at it, people weren’t even nasty in response, mostly they ignored him. It was a really bad thread, but still, that’s a hell of an entrance, isn’t it?

[Liberal]

@Q.E.D.

And, precisely, why not? You’ll need to explain this comment since on the face of it this appears to be a rather stupid thing thing to say. Are you saying that claims of the paranormal are somehow above the scientific method?

No. I honestly don’t know what “science” it is you’re involved with, but it clearly isn’t logic. I also don’t know why you feel compelled to word nearly every question you ever ask me in the rudest possible way. And I don’t know why you would ever expect anything other than a snide quip in return. I’ll be happy to answer your question when you’ve decided that I’m a human being deserving of the most basic respect. Meanwhile, I’ll let Priceguy explain to you why metaphysical claims require analytic evidence and empirical claims require scientific evidence. Unlike you, he has asked sincere questions, and in the process has learned quite much.

[Munch]

@Aeschines

Hey, we’re back on track.

Your post an example of rudness, although I suspect you’re joking.

No, there was a level of rudeness intended, but not of an offending sort, if that makes sense. The OP raised an interesting point, and I don’t see why a seperate discussion can’t be, you know, seperate. **SnakeSpirit ** was near-masterful in derailing a discussion, so it’s good (?) to see his presence here.

[Aeschines]

@Munch

No, there was a level of rudeness intended, but not of an offending sort, if that makes sense. The OP raised an interesting point, and I don’t see why a seperate discussion can’t be, you know, seperate. **SnakeSpirit ** was near-masterful in derailing a discussion, so it’s good (?) to see his presence here.

Who do you think is doing the derailing?

[Aeschines]

@Marley23

(I’m assuming you mean ‘why not’) The answer is because if somebody insults me online and makes me angry, I see no reason not to vent my frustration at its source. This isn’t productive and I’m not pretending it is, but it’s the most sensible thing for me to do on a personal level. Better to vent and have done with it than be undirectedly mad all day.

Psychologically reasonable, I must admit.

I originally intended this to be a short post. I don’t mean to harp just on SnakeSpirit too much, Aeschines, I just wanted to back up my assessment of the guy. Which doesn’t invalidate the broader questions being asked here but, well, I was going to link to one post as a joke and once I got going with this it seemed dumb to stop. Just read his very first posts to GD and I think you’ll see he was sowing the seeds of his banning from Day One. It’s almost a smorgasbord, and yeah, each link goes to a different post.

I gotta thank you for this. I just laughed my ass off–it’s some of the funniest stuff I’ve read on SDMB–ever! Snake is just really funny in an off-kilter way. I mean, there’s some just plain ol’ wild shi’ in there!

Rule violations galore? You bet! But I can’t help finding him hilarious. He’s creative as hell, too.

Now, these were all from one post where he was especially egregious. I don’t think he was like that but a small percentage of the time. Still, I can’t defend the behavior. Still, I’m going to miss his posts…

[Munch]

@Aeschines

Who do you think is doing the derailing?

I would say that Marley23 and E-Sabbath gave it a pretty good push. But that’s neither here nor there right now.

As for my contribution to the OP, I had my fair share of run-ins with SnakeSpirit. As some have said, he offered a unique contribution to the boards. However, he also added a complete lack of protocol and decorum as well. As Veb said, it sounds like he was offered plenty of advice from the mods. I know I e-mailed him a few times to suggest his behavior may have been out of line (Eutychus’ Religion Poll, which he continued to crap all over, despite Euty’s request in the OP to limit your posting to the thread to one, for ease of compilation), and to offer a few good-faith offers of advice. I did the same in several other threads. So did other posters.

But it didn’t appear he wanted to or could follow the rules. It’s unfortunate that it had to happen that way. I still don’t think he completely understands why, though I have no way of knowing. It does seem on occassion that Dopers love a good bear-poking, on others it seems that we’re willing to let people get away with murder. Ultimately what is needed is a stronger system to ignore trolls en masse, and a board culture that fosters such (in)action. Unfortunately, I don’t see how such a system could be implemented with efficiency across the membership.

[dropzone]

@Aeschines

Anyone who takes the “paranormal” side here experiences the same thing to some degree. Derision, mockery, etc.

For the record, I have taken paranormal side on a number of occasions and only once received any derision or mockery. The possible reasons include:

1. Someone else’s blood was already in the water so they were the ones attacked.
2. My reputation as an otherwise erudite and thoughtful member allows me a little more leeway than a newbie might receive.
3. My reputation as a flake made attacking me more effort than simply hitting the “Ignore this poster” button.
4. “Who is dropzone? He has a lot of posts but I can’t say I remember one of them.”

As much as I might prefer Number 2, I believe Number 1 is closer to the truth, with Numbers 3 and 4 close behind. The first wounding attack on a poster gives the others in the pack the courage to press home their own attacks, which are often identical to the first. The person being attacked–and it often IS the person, not just his beliefs, that is being attacked–wheels and feints at each new attacker but finds himself so dizzy and tired he finally succumbs by quitting the board entirely. either voluntarily or by banning. Have you ever watched a pack of wolves take down an elk? It works the same way here.

Yes, an enforced cooling-down period should be put in place for those who are losing perspective–on ANY side of an issue. This is not some Darwinian, “survival of the fittest, loudest, and quickest to Google” battleground where new members must run a gauntlet to prove their worthiness to stay. That is a perverse interpretation of “fighting ignorance” and it is killing this board by driving off the new people who may have some quirky ideas but who have shown their willingness to learn by becoming our guests. Yeah, some of them have strong beliefs that are outside the norm here but they are capable of learning new things if we lead them GENTLY. When we attack them we ossify their positions but if we work slowly they will eventually come to the realization that their original beliefs could use some modification. “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” speaks not of whacking a kid over the head. The rod is a shepherd’s crook and is used to guide, not hit, a sheep and those of you with superior intellects should use them to educate, not intimidate.

Although SnakeSpirit is the poster child of how not to respond to such treatment, that doesn’t change the fact that the treatment is still unacceptable.

Amen. I was on the receiving end of some of his anger but tried to respond like an adult. It works great at deflating someone’s anger.

[Marley23]

@Aeschines

I gotta thank you for this. I just laughed my ass off–it’s some of the funniest stuff I’ve read on SDMB–ever! Snake is just really funny in an off-kilter way. I mean, there’s some just plain ol’ wild shi’ in there!

It is pretty funny, especially when you’re not actually talking to the guy.

Now, these were all from one post where he was especially egregious. I don’t think he was like that but a small percentage of the time.

Well, my point was that that was the first impression people in Great Debates got, and in that Forum, I think that’s what he was like most of the time.

Anyway, excuuuuuuuuse me if I’m derailing the topic, but the general point I’d like to make is that this board is not necessarily that vicious, and what happened to SnakeSpirit (and other posters) is not only a reflection of the board, but of those particular posters.

[Q.E.D]

@Liberal

No. I honestly don’t know what “science” it is you’re involved with, but it clearly isn’t logic. I also don’t know why you feel compelled to word nearly every question you ever ask me in the rudest possible way. And I don’t know why you would ever expect anything other than a snide quip in return…

Grow a skin, Lib. I asked you a simple question. I did not insult you, I did not attack you and I did not even claim you were wrong. Whatever you think, I am willing to listen to your explanation. What I won’t do is alter my writing style to suit the thin-skinned Offenderati. If I ask a question, it’s because I’m genuinely interested in the answer. If you don’t want to explain, then don’t. It’s really no skin off my nose.

That said, if I’ve genuinely offended you, then I offer a humble apology. You may find this hard to believe, but I don’t post thinking “How can I word this to piss Lib off the most?”

[E-Sabbath]

I certainly admit I derailed the thread, but I did it for a very good reason, I think. The general cause of making Aes understand that we aren’t all ‘against him’. That said, unless something needs to be fought, my derailment’s over.