Comments for The Skeptical Manipulation at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 43 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:21:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4911 [quote]written by bosshog, April 14, 2009 Yes yes! By all means let us manipulate the benighted masses into seeing the true light. This issue and the attitudes expressed about it smell of a messianic delusion. [/quote]Clearly you've missed the points being made here. [b]@BillyJoe[/b] SBM it is then. Sounds good to me. - Skeptigirl Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:15:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4910 [quote]written by Trish, April 15, 2009 Skeptigirl – I just saw the remarks you wrote following something I posted. I was shocked to see that you structured the post as if you were quoting me, but made changes to my sentence – which you labeled “([corrections for clarity) and emphasis mine] that changed the meaning of my sentence as written.[/quote] No offense but I interpreted your awkward sentence the best I could. You want to blame me for not understanding what you wrote? What, do you think I did it on purpose and it was an evil plot to make you look bad? If any meaning was changed, it wasn't because of my commas, it was because your sentence was misunderstood by being poorly written. And you admit you typed the wrong pronoun, not that it's a big deal. We all do it. It bothered you that I just changed the 'e' and not the whole word. That's an unbelievably petty complaint. Sounds like you are trying pretty hard to be offended. Sorry, but you've grossly overreacted for no good reason I can see. Instead of having a cow, just say your post was misunderstood and clarify it. I would have gladly apologized for the misunderstanding. I'm not going to apologize for your overreaction, however. [quote]P.S. While it's techincally correct to use parentheses to show a correction to a text, this technique is generally used when the author can't be contacted to correct his/her own work.[/quote]Really? So what, I should have PMed you over a blog reply? You can't be serious. - Skeptigirl Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:09:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4896 Skeptigirl – I just saw the remarks you wrote following something I posted. I was shocked to see that you structured the post as if you were quoting me, but made changes to my sentence – which you labeled “([corrections for clarity) and emphasis mine] that changed the meaning of my sentence as written. I wrote: The only way to counter this "trumpet this hits, rework or ignore or bury the misses" that results is for people to be well educated about the fact that changing one's mind in light of more reliable information is rational and not some fearsome "inconsistency." you changed it to: '"The only way to counter this[,] "trumpet th[e] hits, rework or ignore or bury the misses" that results[,] is for people to be well educated about the fact that changing one's mind in light of more reliable information is rational and not some fearsome "inconsistency."' While you did catch a mistake [“trumpet this hits” should have read “trumpet the hits” - which can be corrected thus: “trumpet [the] hits, rather than the clumsy “trumpet th[e] hits”], the commas you added did not so much clarify as reverse the meaning of my sentence. The sentence, as written, was complex, with phrases that referred to previous statements, so I will clarify the structure of the sentence I wrote. "The only way to counter this X is for people to be educated regarding Y.” The commas you added were grammatically incorrect, chopping the sentence up in such a way that it sounds like I want to counter something by having people “trumpet the hits…bury the misses” – while without the commas, as I intended, my sentence is a call to “…counter this ‘trumpet the hits…bury the misses’ that results….” [when alt med practitioners encourage patients to conflate their self worth with the success of whatever treatment the “practitioner” is selling.] The comma between “counter this” and “trumpet the hits” is the grammatical equivalent of changing this sentence, “The newspaper arrived this morning.” into “The, newspaper arrived this morning.” After mangling what I said, you go on to say, “In short, I think you are saying, make it increasingly acceptable to be wrong. I think this is an important aspect often overlooked.” I want to state clearly that I didn't say, or have any intention of implying that we should “make it increasingly acceptable to be wrong.” I was saying that people will continue to cherry-pick info to support wrong conclusions as long as our society continues to consider revising one’s view in light of better info to be a sign of weakness. Your second sentence, “I think this is an important aspect often overlooked.”, is incoherent. The reader can’t tell what phenomenon has an overlooked aspect. The “this” in that sentence does not clearly refer to any noun. I really don’t care if you object to my position that the only way to get people to stop cherry-picking info to support false conclusions is to become educated enough to understand that changing one’s view in light of better information is rational & not to be feared. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with concluding that some problems only have one solution. P.S. While it's techincally correct to use parentheses to show a correction to a text, this technique is generally used when the author can't be contacted to correct his/her own work. - Trish Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:44:37 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4870 If you say so. ;) - CasaRojo Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:58:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4868 Yes bosshog, YOU are the way the truth and the light. Or at least you could be, as anyone could be, in the sense that by learning to think critically, you would have the tools to observe the world around you draw conclusions that have a much greater likelihood of being true. - MJG Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:47:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4856 CasaRojo: "I am the way and the truth and the light." - bosshog Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:26:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4842 Steel Rat:[quote]I really don't try to convert or manipulate anyone, even though they're constantly trying to convert me. I'd much rather ridicule, because I really don't care what they believe in[/quote] Sure, I get that. However, that's why I really tried to emphasize the point of the person in question being someone you already care about. Yes, it's overwhelming and incredibly frustrating to try and repair every tweaked thought process you encounter. That would certainly result in a general apathy toward the woo wanker, of which you speak. - briangovatos Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:33:03 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4837 [quote]Yet, as skeptics, rationalists, freethinkers, whatever, we tend to forgo this method and replace it instead with IN YOUR FACE (IYF) fact spewing. Sometimes itʼs easy to get our jollies by chuckling at the psychic patrons, gawking at homeopathic...um, "patients", and belittling avid horoscope readers[/quote] I really don't try to convert or manipulate anyone, even though they're constantly trying to convert me. I'd much rather ridicule, because I really don't care what they believe in, but it's my duty to point out to them how silly their beliefs are. Sure, I start out trying to be polite, but that never works. Ever. You only really get someone's attention by, well, getting their attention. Nice guys finish last. - Steel Rat Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:25:20 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4818 >>Yes yes! By all means let us manipulate the benighted masses into seeing the true light. This issue and the attitudes expressed about it smell of a messianic delusion." How about we help them arrive at their own conclusions through education. Manipulate them by helping them with critical thinking skills. Manipulate them into learning about the nature of woo so that they are not taken advantage of. This very different from teaching people about an imagination based super hero. If you truly see a correlation, I'd advise a closer looksee. - CasaRojo Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:18:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4815 Yes yes! By all means let us manipulate the benighted masses into seeing the true light. This issue and the attitudes expressed about it smell of a messianic delusion. - bosshog Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:03:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4808 [quote]Those experiments appear to demonstrate that presenting evidence to someone refuting a belief can result in a “backfire effect” that actually strengthens the belief![/quote] This came up inanother thread where someone said: [quote]No one that believes "X" also believes that there is proof to the contrary. Because it would be extremely silly to believe something you know and believe to be disproven.[/quote] To which someone else ;) responded: [quote]You would be surprised to learn, then, that some religious people see it as test of the strength of their faith to have evidence that flies in its face. They actually bask in the warm satisfaction of having kept the faith in the face of such strong challenges.[/quote] BJ - BillyJoe Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:08:17 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4807 [quote]"Evidence based medicine" is an effective term that has been adopted though some want it to be "scientific evidence based medicine" to prevent the sCAM folks from claiming they too have evidence for their snake oil. While SEBM is correct, you lose something when the term becomes too long.[/quote] Strangely, I've never heard of the term "scientific evidence based medicine" or SEBM. THe term I'm familiar with is "Science Based Medicine" or SBM (SBM = Plausibility + EBM) It even has a web site: [url]http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/[/url] BJ - BillyJoe Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:04:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4800 Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Presenting 'evidence' to someone who is already firm in some belief that the evidence contradicts it usually won't sway them - but, as noted, may increase their belief. That is part of the point of this article: we cannot just keep using the same old methods to educate or berate believers in fallacious things out of those beliefs. How many of us were 'berated' into our current skeptical stance? I doubt any at all. We all arrived at it by a process of educating ourselves and self-realization, even if with assistance. I'm pretty sure that's how I arrived here. Of course, as another responder mentioned, the IYF method must be applied to the higher-ups in the deception business (blemish-her-heart Sylvia et al). They are the ring leaders and persuading them using these more subtle techniques has a much lower chance of success which in turn helps them retain their 'flock' and spread their deceptions. The effect of more subtle persuasion on others may help start to reduce the flocks and disrupt the ability of the deceivers to perpetuate their deceptions. (Sorry for the less than cordial language.) More considerations later. - Kuroyume Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:42:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4799 On Monday, September 15, 2008 (I know the date because I have a blog entry) the Washington Post had an article about research experiments done at Duke and Georgia State(allow me to copy from my blog entry) "Those experiments appear to demonstrate that presenting evidence to someone refuting a belief can result in a “backfire effect” that actually strengthens the belief! The research further indicated that this affect tends to occur with Conservatives but not Liberals. In other words presenting evidence to a Conservative refuting a position he holds isn’t likely to persuade him he’s wrong. It’s more likely to have him dig in his heels!" I don't know if these results are accurate or not, but if they are, then I suspect the "backfire effect" would be even more pronounced with woo-woo true believers. If that's the case, then conversion by manipulation, allowing the individual to "discover" the truth on his own might well be the only way to convince some folks. - Alencon Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:21:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4798 Which reminds me, there is certainly room for real science TV shows that are still entertaining. I think there is enough incredible science out there, and Bigfoot, UFOs and psychic detectives are really getting tiring as TV program topics. This may be a good time to introduce better programming. I think Shermer is (was?) working on something like that. - Skeptigirl Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:15:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4797 Broadcast commercials are expensive. It's unlikely we could carry out much of an effective commercial broadcast advertising campaign based on donations. Consumer reports made a profit (I think) on marketing citizen's benefit advertising (as opposed to sellers' benefit advertising). But even they did not have a huge footprint on broadcast media. Without a profit we are left with less expensive forms of marketing. Fortunately, we have the Internet. My current idea is to share our ideas via networking. Certain types of campaigns lend themselves to this tactic. We've been working on a name for CAM (complementary alternative medicine) that better suits what it actually is. sCAM is convenient for print or computer screen media. "Evidence based medicine" is an effective term that has been adopted though some want it to be "scientific evidence based medicine" to prevent the sCAM folks from claiming they too have evidence for their snake oil. While SEBM is correct, you lose something when the term becomes too long. It's a work in progress. I don't know who started using the "theory is [i]more[/i] certain than a single fact because it is based on lots of facts" framing but I really like it. The same is true for the "overwhelming evidence" and the "science is successful" framing. By simply adopting these marketing slogans amongst ourselves and developing other strategies we spread via networking, we can have the effect of broadcast commercials without the cost. Not that we shouldn't support broadcast commercials when we do have the funds for them. Nothing beats the effectiveness of TV commercials, though some viral Internet stuff certainly rivals it. - Skeptigirl Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:11:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4795 thank you dear friend ;) - saxx Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:08:10 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4794 I must have entered the first URL as underlined instead. Apologies. [url]http://online.worldmag.com/tag/john-freshwater/[/url] - JasonPatterson Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:00:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4793 Using media to demonstrate rational thought and poor arguments is a great tool, I do it in my classroom. I usually use silly things, like the Enzyte commercials or weight loss supplements. The kids are actually pretty good at identifying implied vs explicit statements (though every last one of them thinks that the word explicit means vulgar or dirty due to the CD stickers...) They can be taught to recognize appeals to authority and such fairly well, or so it would seem. Showing Expelled as a way to exemplify irrational thought and spurious arguments in the classroom seems like a fantastic way to lose one's teaching position, at least where I am at. Of course, where I grew up I was taught 8th grade science by John Freshwater. Some of you might remember the name, it was big-ish news in the religion in education arena last summer. [u]http://online.worldmag.com/tag/john-freshwater/[/u] Poor guy, just had a book on his desk and a poster on the wall and he got fired. They fail to tell you that he refused to teach the geology portion of the class or evolution (he'd swap with Mr. George [a good man and an excellent teacher, as I recall] in the room next door for that portion of the course.) They also neglect to tell you about this incident that actually led to his firing. [url]http://depletedcranium.com/?p=567[/url] It's tough being a teacher in the Midwest (at least my part of it) where guys like this get rallies in his favor and I get angry parents calling me and the school after I talk about the evolution of the universe. - JasonPatterson Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:59:07 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/515-the-skeptical-manipulation.html#comment-4788 And it probably goes deeper. The continued misuse of the term and reinforcement by unscrupulous types (starts with a 'c') has been something of a set of stumbling blocks. It is analogous to the ever-flip-flopping studies on how good/bad, say, coffee or beer or wine is for you. One day, the media reports a study that shows benefits. The next, it reports a study that shows malefactions. People are left no better educated. The same for this term in many ways. And made worse by there being a common definition and the more specialized definition used by science. I tend to say 'scientific theory' whenever I mean to be specific (and maybe loosen it to 'theory' thereafter it is understood). The idea of the Walters-Randi video or the Carson-Randi video as starting places in a media sense is a good one. That and advertisements. We're talking marketing (of science and critical thinking). Where better to start than the place that hits almost every one of us everyday like a non-stop barrage - product advertisements. Start with the more innocuous ones (food, diet plans, toys, pitched products) and move onto the more insidious ones ('Smiling Bob', Q-Ray, wearable magnets, diet plans). Hmmm. Entice people with their everyday situations - What do I eat to be healthy and energetic? What's the best way to lose weight? Which automobile should I buy? Consumer Reports, which you mentioned, is a prime example here of testing-based, no-nonsense consumer information on various products and their efficacy. When it comes to important or expensive purchases, I always do comparisons, read consumer reviews, find the product with the features that are needed but without those that are not, and so on. - Kuroyume Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:31:55 +0100