I know Shermer has written a book on why people believe weird things and he gives his version for why this is. Basically, he argues its because they are good at making elegant arguments and expressing them in an accessible fashion - so they appear plausible.
However, is this a complete explanation? Seems to me it might be more relevant for why they can convince others of their nonsense ideas rather than why they hold them in the first place.....hhhmmmmm :-\
What do people here think? Any further suggestions for why well educated and otherwise know to be clever people can come over all woo on certain subjects (Sheldrake being one example / Fenwick being another) and abandon reason?
I think there's also a need to believe.
Even the most intelligent of us want to believe in things that make us "special" or stand out, or even that we could be the one who discovers the afterlife or telepathy.
A friend said something interesting the other day. He stated something that he thought was a fact (a bit of trivia about skate wings), but when it was Googled, he found out it was in fact an urban myth.
And he said something along the lines of "I'm happy to admit I was wrong, but I'll also admit that it doesn't feel good."
I agreed with that, and added that the buzz of being proved right is a very attractive and addictive thing, a physical sensation, for me, akin to receiving a compliment or flirting.
And being proved right is another way of saying someone agrees with you. If the person agreeing with you is an authority, then the buzz is even bigger!
So, perhaps that is a factor. People come up with woo theories, and get so addicted to the buzz of being agreed with by their followers (who WANT to believe), that they just can't let it go.
Is that just a long-winded way of saying they've invested their ego in it?
argumentum ad ego?
I've just been part of a massive thread on a business networking forum about the ability to see into the future. It is stunning what people say to back up their ideas, especially when their income depends on it.
People believe bollox for emotional reasons.
For instance I know a lady who had ME as a teen, now she hangs out with a group of 'druids' some of whom have faux-life-threatening illnesses whilst never having been diagnosed with anything physical despite years of tests. The fact some of their diets are practically calorie-free probably has something to do with it :)
Anyway she believes her guru is dying of an illness never before known to science- though it looks like she has anorexia to anyone looking at her.
Her argument was that science didn't acknowledge illnesses such as ME for years- I didn't even get into that one :D What with it being a physical illness treated by therapy and anti-depressants.
Anyway do you see what I mean that she can't look at these people critically without having to acknowledge some of her own past emotional 'stuff'- so it's easier for these women to exist in a malinger-friendly subculture?
Love
Kath
P.S. I don't mean to be nasty to anyone with mental health conditions or with genuine ME by saying this :-\ Hope no-one's upset by my post.
I don’t think woo has anything to do with intelligence – I think it’s a different inner view of what’s “out there”.
Being your current (well behaved) woo resistance representative I have put this together for a bit of fun…don’t take it personally.
Woos believe in love not hate. Someone who is arrogantly judgemental will be considered ignorant and spiritually unenlightened. Those who exhibit humility, empathy and understanding are more likely to be heard. Woos have ears that only pick up certain frequencies of sound – gentle, soft, musical.
Woos believe that science does NOT know it all. Ordinary woos are bemused by the arrogance of the scientific world where they might suspect “reason” is a status behaviour not meaning wisdom.
Woos work from observation of the human condition rather than what is proved in a laboratory. Many woo activities are carried on because it has been observed to assist their loved ones by themselves, older members of the community and their ancestors. EBM will not change a woos’ belief system. Outcome Trials might.
Despite randomised control trials “proving” their healing methods do not work – a woo understands the impossibility of demonstrating the opposite in a way that satisfies the scientific community. Any scientist doing so would be committing academic suicide. Peer Review to a woo simply means a whole lot of scientists who are worried about political correctness and their own status trying to pick each other to pieces.
Woos believe in tenderness. The clinical coldness of the medical system seems alien and counter productive because all woos know the healing process accelerates with the gentle touch. Violent ways of making people “well” seem aggressive. Woos know that there must be a better way and they look for it. Woos use therapeutic healing techniques because for them, they seem better.
Woos would accept it if some of their theories were investigated with a scientific motive of “proving” something. However, they would think it strange to attempt exploding a concept or theory “by hurling it against the wall and examining the pieces”. They would presume that some bits of wall might get mixed up in the debris. Woos think in terms of possibilities. And that would be one possibility.
Remember woos have eternity and many lifetimes to observe how things will pan out. They are equipped with an inner conviction that is there in spite of science. Science is slowly revealing a lot of what they have believed all along and many scientific terms fit their concepts perfectly – but in a “modern” way. Woos will simply be “meek” for they know they will inherit the earth. It’s no good torturing a woo – they are immune!
Compiled with some assistance from http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html and other sites.
M
But science doesn't think it knows it all either! Otherwise there would be no science!
Science starts with saying "I don't know" - that's how society has managed to progress. Reject that, and you condemn us to the dark ages. If science thinks it has all the answers, then there would be no new science. That's one of the worst ways in which woos misrepresent science.
I disagree about the intelligence of woos. From the forums I have seen, there is a clear correlation between irrational belief and low intelligence, evidenced in their poor writing skills, incoherent arguments and inability to understand evidence or rationalise their own beliefs.
You really should understand that the word 'woo' is something skeptics came up with to disparage people who allow irrational beliefs to dictate their actions. You can try and put a positive spin on it all you like but the word 'woo' is intended to be, and used as, an insult.
I've tried many ways of talking to woos and neither works. On the Randi forums I've ranted and shouted and sworn. Nothing, they just back up and call skeptics unthinking harsh etc. So, in the recent discussion I had on the business network forum I went into cotton wool mode.
They still thought I was an un-enlightened ignoramus. I'll give you some examples:
The thread was started by someone who gives tarot readings. It started off with the title "Can I really see into the future.. I think I can".
All I said was "Can you provide evidence". Now this went on for a bit citing Sheldrake and then asking me for evidence that 'psi' was not possible. I said :
"You were the one that made the claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence"
She replied :
"Did I? Did I really?"
Another person said "Have you ever thought that you might be wrong?" (to me).
I double checked the thread, I'd not actually said that I didn't believe in Psi. Not at any point. I'd simply said "show me the evidence". So I asked "Wrong about what?" I'm still waiting...
You see, here's the difficulty. You think you can talk to woos, but you really can't. They're so entrenched in their own little world that they can't see what's going on around them. Now, whether this is anything to do with intelligence I don't know, I think it's more to do with lack of common sense. It's also a lot to do with money.
Another example. I posted in another thread a question about psychometric testing which I'm currently looking into. A guy trying to sell a course based on it was quite put out that I announced that Carl Jung's techniques were nonsense. Their business is essentially based on it. And so is their income stream.
The upshot is, I think woo+money from woo = switch off brain to all other ideas, regardless of intelligence.
Makes me wanna puke.
I have thought in the past about why intelligent people are religious, which appears to me a special case of "Why do otherwise clever often people believe in nonsense?"
The conclusions that I came to were summarized as
1) Religious Indoctrination When Young
2) An Inability to Reason
3) Ignorance
4) Fear of Permanent Loss Arising From Death
I feel that religious indoctrination is the most important and most damaging. It can result in even the most intelligent individuals having ridiculous and primitive beliefs, which cannot be altered or discarded, even when those individuals have developed the ability to reason and evaluate evidence. I have met scientists who flounder when asked to justify their belief in a god – their attempts to rationalize what, to their scientific mind, is irrational and absurd, are not convincing to other scientific minds that have either not been exposed to religious indoctrination or have managed to break free of its constraining effects.
I wounder how many intelligent (or thick) people with generally irrational beliefs (not just religious) developed these beliefs following religious indoctrination when very young - what proportion of homeopaths, crystal wavers, quacks, aura readers, etc. were exposed to religious indoctrination?
Once the mind has been encouraged to accept religious nonsense at a very young age, is it open to accepting other irrational nonsense?
I disagree to a certain extent. I think that a lot of these people aren't necessarily stupid, but very poorly educated. Writing is a skill which requires training and practice, so are logical thought and construction of arguments.Originally Posted by tkingdoll
My sister is a perfect example of this, she left school at 16 because she hated it. She found her vocation as a hair stylist, and she's very good, she part owned and ran a Toni & Guy salon successfully for several years, but hated the politics. Last year she sold her interest in it and left, and later this year she's going out to Florida because hair stylists can earn far more money there. In order to get her work visa she has to have an official qualification, so she's doing an NVQ. The practical side is no problem, but she has to word process her coursework, which really is a problem, because she hasn't a clue how to construct a grammatically correct sentence. She never made much of an effort in school, and she hasn't written like that in almost 25 years.
She reads the Daily Mirror, Heat and other such rags, so her source of information is rather limited in scope and research. She holds some woo beliefs, although she is willing to admit she's wrong, so she's not hardcore woo. But I can easily see how she could become hardcore woo without me and the rest of our family to tell her when she's talking bollocks. She knows us (obviously) and trusts us, and she knows what our qualifications are and that we know what we're talking about, so when we correct her she accepts it. But she might not accept it from a stranger, particularly if that person was being dismissive or aggressive, she's extremely stubborn.
In summary, my sister is highly intelligent, but poorly educated, and if you encountered her on an internet forum she'd come across pretty much as the woos you described.
I disagree with that. What about all the doctors who train in homeopathy? They have had a good education and a scientific education in med school and can string a sentence together.
Money. For example, not only has homeopathy been shown to be bunk, the very basis for it is bunk. Doctors that turned up to their lectures and passed their exams surely know this? But the markup on water is pretty good, so why not sell it?
Obviously that's being harsh on doctors, I'm willing to concede that a lot of doctors do it fully knowing it's placebo and when people buy something, regardless of the fact it's bunk, they'll feel better.
Doctors who do this should still be flailed alive however.
Thanks to our
for the definition of the "woo" position :)current (well behaved) woo resistance representative
An off-topic observation: I can sort of empathise with your position here, Michelle. In another forum far, far away, Median and I are the "current skeptic resistance representatives" (althought I've been getting a bit less well-behaved of late). I do it because I feel it makes some small contribution towards disseminating the ideas of critical thinking, but there are times when it is a lonely and annoying business. Although I disagree with some of what you post, I welcome your presence and your input
Back on topic, I think you touch on the most important difference between the classic "woo" and "skeptic" positions:
In my experience, hard-core woos are totally convinced of the validity of their own individual subjective perception, and consider this to be the primary source of evidence for drawing any conclusion. They are unable to deal with dissonance between what they think they have observed, and what they are told are the conclusions of properly conducted research. Skeptics on the other hand regard subjective perception (including their own) as potentially misleading, and require evidential corroboration of it rather than accepting it at face value.Woos work from observation of the human condition rather than what is proved in a laboratory.
This fundamental difference leads directly to a differing approaches to the classic woo issues: non-evidence based medical treatments, supernatural entities, paranormal powers (such as psychics, ESP, dowsing etc) and dramatic conspiracy theories. Woos are credulous of their own experiences, and by extension to non-corroborated experiences claimed by others: skeptics are doubtful of the credibility of any subjective experience unless backed up by reproducible evidence.
As for the apparent intellectual differences between skeptics and woos - I am inclined to agree with wollery. People who think in this way are not necessarily stupid - they simply have not acknowledged the potential fallibility of personal experience. It is possible to change peoples' approach to this question if you can catch them early enough, before their position becomes entrenched and climbing down starts to look unnacceptably humiliating. The trouble is that this argument is mostly conducted between people who are in entrenched positions - and for some of them, there seems to be no hope :(
I disagree that lack of education can appear as low intelligence. Basic reasoning ability has nothing to do education - I should know, I left school at 12 years old, yet who would know?
However, there is no doubt that education levels are usually a reflection of intelligence in the first place. There are obviously exceptions, but largely, smarter people go to university and less intelligent people do not.
I urge you to check out woo boards and see what I mean. There is a very low level of intelligence demonstrated pretty consistently in the writing there.
Now, I'm not talking about the PhD believers who invent and promote the theories, I'm talking about the followers. And I'm pretty sure it's harder to convince a bunch of smart people of your wacky anti-science than a bunch of less intelligent people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks