|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2003 : 11:13:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa
*Raises hand*
On the forums, I'm fairly civil most of the time.
But for some reason, when I'm on PalTalk, and a female woo woo enters the room, I go ballistic. Guess whenever I hear a nasal female voice saying "Well, yu all skeptics maya thank yu know it awl, but mah bibull sayas yu all are goin to hell." Or we get some broad in there who claims to be able to read our futures, because of the power the aliens gave her the last time she was abducted. I go right off the shelf, okay?
Yes, there is the stereotype that women believe in more woo woo things than men. I don't know if it's true, but the stereotype persists nonetheless.
In these cases, the guys are usually much nicer than I am. One guy offered to calm me down personally. Ripping out my phone line and duct tape was mentioned. I was really pissed that night.
Here's the problem: IMO, the notion that women are more in tune with nature and therefore more spiritual is a load of horsecookies. This harkens back to the days when females were given cake courses to take in school because, hey, they're gonna get married after graduation, right? News flash people: those days are over. Whenever I hear some female yapping about how "spiritual" she is, I think it's a euphemism for "I'm too lazy to pick up anything more technical than a Sylvia Browne book".
I'm 43 years old, spent 20 years in the military. I feel like I've been fighting an uphill battle against this my whole life. So when some "earth mother" decides to infest our chat room, personifying and perpetuating the "spiritual woman" crap, I must admit I go spare.
*Sorry, this was probably totally off topic, but it's a rant I've had building up for some time.*
Vent acknowledged. 
You mentioned you don't think there is a connection between being "in-tune" with nature and spirituality. I would have to agree. I think I am quite connected to nature (nature enthusiast) and I have zero spirituality. I don't use the word in-tune because it's hard to define.
So, using yourself as the example, what do you think influenced your skepticism? |
 |
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 11:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
So, using yourself as the example, what do you think influenced your skepticism?
That's a tough one, and something I've asked myself quite a bit. I used to think the answer was education, but that explanation falls flat after a bit of examination. I've known people who could barely read who were highly skeptical. Conversely, I've found a diploma doesn't instill any high degree of critical thinking. If you don't believe me, run out and date a EE engineering major.
I'd say untimately I have my parents to thank. Mom wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her mantra was "believe nothing you hear, and half of what you see". Dad always encouraged me to find rational explanations for everything.
This early attitude probably was most instrumental to innoculate me against the various woo woo beliefs out there.
See why the question is tough for me? I've read on this board, and elsewhere, a lot of testimonials from people who've turned into skeptics. They always say: I used to believe in *whatever* until I realized that *at this point critical thinking takes over*.
I got to skip the *whatever* part. Skepticism and critical thinking isn't even something I consciously do. It's how I was raised.
And this is probably why I get so pissed at the various idiots who blow into our chat room and attempt to challenge us. At the tender age of four, I could manage the rudiments of critical thinking. I knew what was and was not considered evidence. If a four year old can grasp these concepts, why can't someone who's in their say, 30's? |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 12:08:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
My girlfriend is a skeptic. She posts very rarely on this or any other site. I think she liked the study that Reasonable Doubt brought up. Men seem to like pulling each others chains. They do it for fun. She believes that men are socialized to compete in sports, debate or what have you. Woman are more socialized to look for common ground. So for a woman to get involved in a debate on a forum like this, she is basically saying that the differences out weigh any common ground.
To put it another way, there is less reason for woman to post on a site like this. The disagreements exist, but since woman feel less need to compete for a win, they may also feel less need to argue.
That is not to say that woman are passive. It may, however, mean that woman choose their battles differently than men do....
Of course, there are exceptions....
So Kil, I noticed you used the word "socialized" a couple of times. So your girlfriend must think it is nurture, not nature that conditions men and women to behave the way we do? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 13:16:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Deborah: So Kil, I noticed you used the word "socialized" a couple of times. So your girlfriend must think it is nurture, not nature that conditions men and women to behave the way we do?
I asked her. She thinks in this case it is mostly nurture. She does not rule out nature as contributing to behaviors. She does point out that male and female children are often taught different, gender specific social skills. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 14:33:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa
That's a tough one, and something I've asked myself quite a bit. I used to think the answer was education, but that explanation falls flat after a bit of examination. I've known people who could barely read who were highly skeptical. Conversely, I've found a diploma doesn't instill any high degree of critical thinking. If you don't believe me, run out and date a EE engineering major.
I'd say untimately I have my parents to thank. Mom wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but her mantra was "believe nothing you hear, and half of what you see". Dad always encouraged me to find rational explanations for everything.
This early attitude probably was most instrumental to innoculate me against the various woo woo beliefs out there.
See why the question is tough for me? I've read on this board, and elsewhere, a lot of testimonials from people who've turned into skeptics. They always say: I used to believe in *whatever* until I realized that *at this point critical thinking takes over*.
I got to skip the *whatever* part. Skepticism and critical thinking isn't even something I consciously do. It's how I was raised.
And this is probably why I get so pissed at the various idiots who blow into our chat room and attempt to challenge us. At the tender age of four, I could manage the rudiments of critical thinking. I knew what was and was not considered evidence. If a four year old can grasp these concepts, why can't someone who's in their say, 30's?
Early on I indicated I thought that nature dictates our range and nurture influences where we fall in that range. Do you think this could explain the differences you mention in the people you have observed with various upbringings and education? In my case, I think I always had a healthy dose of skepticism even though I was not raised by skeptical parents. They weren't exactly religious (they believe in God, but that's about it), but they have this sort of unquestioning characteristic about them. And if it were up to them, I would have tried a little harder to be like everyone else..which I never had the desire to do. I think I went through stages or degrees of skepticism. At some point, I needed to affirm my skepticism and I did that by immersing myself into relgious thought and rituals (yes, I attended church and studied the bible!) to try and prove myself wrong I guess, but that didn't last very long. Obviously, my understanding improved as I learned more, but I would have to agree that I don't think that a formal education is the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic. Perhaps, all those "religious" non-church attending folks out there who don't believe in anything specific about their religion are really closet skeptics afraid to stand out from the rest of society or they are simply folks who lack the instinct to question. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 01:34:30 [Permalink]
|
Deborah: I don't think that a formal education is the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are right, a formal educaion is not the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic, but it is a large part. Look at the people who worshipped the sun and the moon. They did this because they didn't understand the rational truths behind all the benefits of them. They could not understand it, so they gave them supernatual status.
Once people gradually recieved more enlightened information about this phenomena, the supernatural explanations faded. People seem to become more sceptical as new information is presented.(education)
|
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 07:16:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Deborah: I don't think that a formal education is the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are right, a formal educaion is not the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic, but it is a large part. Look at the people who worshipped the sun and the moon. They did this because they didn't understand the rational truths behind all the benefits of them. They could not understand it, so they gave them supernatual status.
Once people gradually recieved more enlightened information about this phenomena, the supernatural explanations faded. People seem to become more sceptical as new information is presented.(education)
Fireballn, I don't think we disagree. I said formal education. That doesn't mean that when new information is presented or sought after that a person is not being educated, but not necessarily formally educated, such as through a college or university. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 15:40:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
You are right, a formal educaion is not the only factor involved in the making of a skeptic, but it is a large part. Look at the people who worshipped the sun and the moon. They did this because they didn't understand the rational truths behind all the benefits of them. They could not understand it, so they gave them supernatual status.
Once people gradually recieved more enlightened information about this phenomena, the supernatural explanations faded. People seem to become more sceptical as new information is presented.(education)
You confuse world view with method - what people believe versus how people arrive at those beliefs. Skepticism deals, in part, with how we address and resolve uncertainty. That people do not pray to the moon these days has nothing to do with them being more skeptical and everything to do with them being more certain that the moon is a natural phenomenon.
As for "formal education", one of its failures, in my opinion, has been its focus on facts rather than methodology. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 12:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, I am disappointed, the author of the article DiMossi referenced did not respond to my email! Oh well. I've received responses from genetic labs that I have emailed, but not from the author of a seemingly poorly written article who is too lazy to cite his sources. Score one for ConsequentAtheist.
On a somewhat unrelated note. I was looking back through a web log I keep and I read an entry where I was venting about my ex-boyfriend and his competitveness and how I didn't share his obsession for it. I was venting about how we never had time for each other because he was obsessive about his routine..swimming EVERY week night until 7 or 8pm, skiing and cycling on the weekend. I enjoy skiing, but he was ski patrol so of course that was an issue because he wanted to ski black diamonds and I just wanted to ski and get some exercise together and have fun and not break my neck! So in everything he participated in, he wanted to be the best at it and it drove me mad because our motivations clashed a bit. I correlated that need to push himself with the other side of him that I knew that was insecure about who he was growing up and I just thought.if I have kids with this person one day is this how I want my kids to grow up...not ever feeling like they were good enough. Blah. No! I respected his energy and drive, but not the self-criticism and NEED to be better than everyone else. If that's where you end up, great, but in the process of attempting to get there...you have to have fun and be good to yourself!
So, maybe we'll never be able to say with certainty it's nature or nurture or what percent it's nature and what percent it's nurture, but it's all very interesting! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 19:09:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
On a somewhat unrelated note. I was looking back through a web log I keep and I read an entry where I was venting about my ex-boyfriend and his competitveness and how I didn't share his obsession for it. I was venting about how we never had time for each other because he was obsessive about his routine..swimming EVERY week night until 7 or 8pm, skiing and cycling on the weekend. I enjoy skiing, but he was ski patrol so of course that was an issue because he wanted to ski black diamonds and I just wanted to ski and get some exercise together and have fun and not break my neck! So in everything he participated in, he wanted to be the best at it and it drove me mad because our motivations clashed a bit. I correlated that need to push himself with the other side of him that I knew that was insecure about who he was growing up and I just thought.if I have kids with this person one day is this how I want my kids to grow up...not ever feeling like they were good enough. Blah. No! I respected his energy and drive, but not the self-criticism and NEED to be better than everyone else. If that's where you end up, great, but in the process of attempting to get there...you have to have fun and be good to yourself!
Heh. Lack of obsessiveness. I knew you weren't a geek. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 19:50:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Heh. Lack of obsessiveness. I knew you weren't a geek.
Not that I claim to want to be geeky, but explain the connection. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 23:11:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Heh. Lack of obsessiveness. I knew you weren't a geek.
Not that I claim to want to be geeky, but explain the connection.
I think obsessing about some activity or another is a necessary component of True Geekiness™, no? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 08:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Heh. Lack of obsessiveness. I knew you weren't a geek.
Not that I claim to want to be geeky, but explain the connection.
I think obsessing about some activity or another is a necessary component of True Geekiness™, no?
geek
n. Slang
1.a) A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.
1.b) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.
2. A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.
Technically, I would be more geeky than my ex according to this definition because I am more accomplished than him professionally however I am not socially inept..he is though..so I think it would be a toss up. Either way, neither of us fits the definition completely. Apprently, you feel that you do though. And you are proud of this why? |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 20:00:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, I was hardly following the standard recognized definition of "geek" and, in any case, it was a joke - apparently ineptly executed. Nevermind.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 21:02:54 [Permalink]
|
| Phdreamer: I thought I would make it hard for you since you were "attempting" to harass me ;-) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
