How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends
Being known as a skeptic is not necessarily good for your social life. Here's how to overcome to difficulties.
Filed under Logic & Persuasion
| Skeptoid #116 August 26, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
When I first started the Skeptoid podcast, it was anonymous. I didn't give my name at all in the first 5 or 10 episodes. Why? Because I was afraid of offending my friends and family, afraid of becoming known as a hateful, closed-minded skeptic. I knew that skeptical outreach is an important educational task and needs to be done, but at the same time, I had to live with people. I have friends, neighbors, coworkers, and acquaintances. I'd long ago learned to keep my mouth shut when someone started praising the merits of some new paranormal thing. I reasoned that the best way to be a skeptic and a member of society was to broadcast my critical thinking analyses as far and wide as I could with the podcast, while shielding myself inside a safe little bubble of personal anonymity.
As you probably know, that didn't remain the case. My friends and family found out about Skeptoid almost immediately, but since they're great people I didn't really catch much flak for it, and they pretty much knew that I was skeptical anyway. I decided at that point that if I was going to do it at all, I was going to do it all the way. So I re-recorded all the early episodes with my name on them, and put my full name and picture and bio on the web site. In for a penny, in for a pound; so the saying goes.
This doesn't mean that I go out looking for fights. I rarely go out of my way to proactively challenge a friend's belief when I happen to overhear them talking about something paranormal or pseudoscientific, and then only when it's appropriate to do so. Does it irk me when I hear them talking about how scary the ghosts were in last night's episode of Ghost Hunters, or how they're treating their back pain with reiki? Absolutely it does. And now, since they know that I'm "that skeptical guy", frequently they'll come up to me with something. More often than not, they saw on Action News last night that you can run your car on water, or that an old man somewhere is a proven psychic healer, or that an engineer has gone on record saying the Twin Towers were a controlled implosion. Usually they're snickering because they often believe that now they've got me, that now their evidence is irrefutable and they're about to go one-up on the skeptic. They ask me what I think.
And I'm not the only one who gets this. I frequently hear from listeners who find themselves in similar situations. Here's one email I got:
In my experience, I always come off as a "know-it-all jerk" because in conversations, I have ethical issues with just letting them go on in life with misinformation, especially as a scientist. Maybe the real lesson is just "don't talk science with them. let them believe what they want to believe." I just feel so terrible knowing that they're going to go on, and maybe make a poor decision based upon the assumption that what they know is true.
And here's another:
Starting an argument, although productive, is not instrumental in making and keeping friendships, since a lot of people are very happy with their delusions and only become annoyed with someone when their false knowledge is pointed out. How does one go about informing a true believer without alienating them?
So there we have it. The problem: How to be a skeptic, and talk with your friends and coworkers when the subject comes up, without turning people off? Here is the solution.
Focus on where you agree, never on where you disagree. Start by finding common ground. No matter who you're talking to, they have some level of skepticism about something. Ask them, "Isn't there some myth you've heard that you don't necessarily believe?"
They'll answer "Well sure, Bigfoot, space aliens," whatever.
Tell them "I'm skeptical of Bigfoot for the exact same reasons you are. Tell me why you don't believe in Bigfoot?" And now you've got your friend telling you the very reasons you're skeptical of the new claim. The evidence is of poor quality, it's too improbable, whatever it is. Help your friend along. Point out more reasons to be skeptical of Bigfoot. Be familiar with our checklist of 15 warning signs to help you spot pseudoscience from Skeptoid episode 37.
And then, once you have a good list, apply that same reasoning to the new claim. "We agree that part of the reason Bigfoot is suspect is that we have low quality evidence coming from people with dubious credentials. We can also find those same problems with the claim that you can run your car on water. Also, we agree that one reason Bigfoot is improbable is that if it was real, we'd have known about it by now — people have been living in Bigfoot habitat for hundreds of years. We can say that same thing about running your car on water — science has known all about oxyhydrogen and electrolysis for hundreds of years and exploited it many different ways. It wouldn't have to wait for some guy on the Internet to claim to know something that science doesn't."
Feelings are hurt not so much when there is disagreement, but when someone is summarily proclaimed to be wrong. This doesn't just mean telling your friend that he's wrong, it includes telling your friend that the TV Action News is wrong. It's your friend's source, he found it convincing; and when you simply declare it to be wrong without having seen it, you come off as petty and dismissive. Avoid negative language. Avoid saying that anyone is wrong.
"That announcement you heard alerts us to the possibility that this new breakthrough is true, just as the recent Bigfoot news story alerted us that a Bigfoot body might have been found. But science doesn't determine the validity of a theory based on whether or not its proponents have sent out a single press release; an announcement that would be more interesting would be that the test protocols have been published and the experiment is being successfully replicated all over the world."
Find the common ground. "What are you skeptical of? Well, I'm probably skeptical of it for the exact same reason you are."
You can also accept your friend's claim as a great first step, and tell him what else you'd need to see to be convinced. When something's real, it's real; it can be defined, measured, quantified, and replicated by other researchers. When something's only published on the fringe, or reported from only a single source, that doesn't make it wrong yet; but it does mean that it has not yet been replicated by objective scientists following the same protocols.
Just because you can have this conversation in a positive and non-adversarial way doesn't mean you always have to have the conversation. I still find it best to simply keep my mouth shut a lot of the time. A neighbor knocked on my door with their acupuncturist's business card when I was suffering from some pain after one of my volleyball surgeries. That's a kindness, and I thanked them and left it at that. This way the neighbor remains my friend and the door is always open to have the conversation at a more appropriate time.
Spreading critical thinking by engaging in conversation with your acquaintances should be a way to build bridges, not to expose rifts. If you take one thing away from this podcast, it should be that point. Concentrate on where you agree. I've found that this has converted people who used to come to me as an adversary to challenge me with new claims into friends who seek out my opinion on stories that sound fishy to them.
The important first step is to allow youself to become known as a skeptic. Wear the T-shirts and have the books sitting on your desk at the office. When people know that you're the skeptic, they'll come to you when they want to challenge you. And when they come to you, you're not the jerk. Put yourself out there as a skeptic, and wait for the business to come to your door. When it does, handle it positively and show people that they're skeptics too, they just didn't realize it. When you can help someone to understand that they are already themselves a skeptic of something — Bigfoot, aliens, UFOs, celebrity psychics, whatever — your job is half done. It's like judo, use your opponent's strength against him. Help him redirect his own intelligence and existing skepticism towards the subjects where he has not yet thought critically. In this way, you can be a skeptic and still have friends — and, chances are, you'll even have new skeptical friends.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Burgess, G., Burgess, H. "Crafting Effective Persuasive Arguments." Conflict Information Consortium. University of Colorado, 30 Dec. 1998. Web. 25 Aug. 2008. <http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/usepersn.htm>
Goldstein, N., Martin, S., Cialdini, R. Yes! 50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion. London: Profile Books, 2007.
Novella, S. "How to Argue." The New England Skeptical Society. The New England Skeptical Society, 1 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Jan. 2010. <http://www.theness.com/how-to-argue/>
Sagan, C., Druyan, A. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1995.
Wilson, R. Don't Get Fooled Again - The Skeptic's Guide to Life. London: Icon Books, 2008.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
26 Aug 2008. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4116>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I haven't listened to it yet, but I have been working on this for a long time. How does one keep friends? Two weeks ago I met some creationist that got so mad at me they wanted to punch me in the face. Still I really look forward to this short advice.
Christopher, Borra, Oswego, Illinois
August 26, 2008 3:27pm
I think the subjects you address in this podcast are what is most needed in the skeptical community. I don't know how many conversations I've been in where I've taken the hard debunker line and thus made it impossible for anyone to take stock in what I was saying. They were too busy 'defending' against the 'attack'. The thing about it is that you never get to share the beauty of science by taking this approach. It's hard to show people the awe-inspiring fruits of critical thinking when you come off as a curmudgeonly debunker. One shouldn't linger too long in the mode of debunking bad ideas, because you'll get stuck, and you won't be able to spread the good ones.
Jason, Virginia
August 26, 2008 3:43pm
Dawkins has pointed out that all religious people are "atheist" with respect to every religion but their own, but this line of argument hasn't been terribly effective.
Max, Boston, MA
August 26, 2008 4:54pm
When I became a Skeptic, I realized that just a little bit of rational thinking immediately calls a lot of my friends' beliefs into question... and actually makes a lot of those beliefs seem utterly ridiculous. I have had a hard time dealing with the fact that my friends believe that M.D.s are in cahoots with Big Pharma to actually MAKE people sick, and then KEEP them sick... that the U.S. government planted thousands of bombs in the world trade center... that Bigfoot exists, without a doubt... that a Chiropractor is a great idea when your knee is hurting (crack your back to fix your KNEE?), etc, etc, etc.
And their smug, untouchable belief in these things is absolutely maddening, although I care about them very much. I am sure glad that Brian has thought to address this issue, because when I became a true Skeptic, I was suddenly surrounded by credulous people, and when I spoke my mind, I felt completely alone. And it didn't feel very good sometimes.
Hans, Portland, Oregon
August 26, 2008 8:25pm
I found the answer to this conundrum years ago, and it works perfectly.
I don't have any friends.
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
August 27, 2008 3:30am
Excellent advice. I have recently been having trouble with these issues myself.
I did manage to see (not sure how much I actually helped along) my long-term girlfriend change from a New Ager to a (I'm proud to say) skeptic and atheist. We started out watching P&T:Bullshit!, just some ones I knew she'd agree with, and then some more challenging ones. Then, I don't know how, she wanted to read my copy of The God Delusion: boom, atheist.
So, yeah, the light touch works wonders -- pushing an issue makes most people defensive (irrationally so), an error I've made many times and certainly hasn't garnered any positive results.
Keep up the great work, Brian!
Carlton, Providence, RI
August 27, 2008 10:01am
I don't know if it should be skepticism's role, or a skeptics goal, to make people atheist, or we should count it as a "win" when someone "crosses over."
Personally I think it's only when religion crosses over into "public" realm that it opens itself up to criticism. Even then, I think the argument has to be limited to debunking only the idea put forth.
It isn't wrong/stupid/ignorant to believe in God. God may well exist. So might the deity of any of the various religions. So might the flying spaghetti monster. Science is in no position to make a claim there.
It isn't wrong/stupid/ignorant to believe God played a part in creation of species, or the universe. The only point at which a believer would open themselves up to criticism is when they step over into the land of science and claim that science alone can't explain all the species, or how the universe formed.
Now, outside of religion I would say much of the things that are popular skeptical topics are fair game, because those live and work smack dab in downtown Scienceville. I think it's here that most of our energy should be focused.
We're never going to, and shouldn't try, to convince a 50%+ religious population their belief in God is silly, because who's to say it is anyway. We COULD, on the other hand, convince the right people that homeopathy, Chiropractors that treat more than back pain, therapeutic touch, etc are all ridiculous.
Quack medical treatment costs us all money, whether or not we practice it.
Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
August 27, 2008 11:30am
Brian,
Thanks for this episode! I have seen how some people view skeptics as grouch out to ruin everybody's parade. For some, a rational or scientific explanation for otherwise compelling and mysterious phenomena is seen as an attack on the beauty they perceive. While part of this reaction certainly has to do with individual defensiveness, I think a lot of it has to do with the animosity that skeptics often express towards the beliefs (and by extension the individual believer) they try to debunk.
So kudos to you for encouraging critical thinkers to look for common ground, treat others with respect, and temper their skepticism with a sense of appropriateness. Skepticism can do no good if the communication skills of the skeptic end up alienating the very individuals who might benefit from critical thought.
Logan Bender, Seattle WA
August 27, 2008 12:37pm
I think the biggest thing skeptics suffer from is pompousness -- I think here of someone like Christopher Hitchens, who turns a lot of people off simply by his manner of delivery.
I am an arch-skeptic and guilty of this myself. It's hard not to be patronising toward people who disregard the evidence in favour of beliefs they just "feel" more comfortable having. And I often think skepticism simply unsettles them, threatens to rob them of what they need to feel secure in the world.
Frankly I've stopped caring. I say what has to be said, and I say it in as direct a way as possible. Whoever doesn't want to hear it won't want to hear it no matter how it's said.
Jarred Cinman, Johannesburg, South Africa
September 02, 2008 10:35am
Skeptics come across as pompous because often they have researched a topic and actually do KNOW a lot about the topic they discuss. Half the point of BEING a skeptic is finding out everything you can so you can make an informed decision about a topic. This necessarily means, yes you ARE a knowitall. Which is unfortunate.
I continuously try to explain to people what being a skeptic is. Many people confuse skeptic with cynic - I find this to be most of the problem. Define skeptic to them and they suddenly become a lot more amenable to what you are saying.
The other approach I try is the "Why" game, like I used to play when I was a kid (answering every statement with "Why?") but of course, you make it cleverer than that... you just gently prod the person into thinking for themselves and questioning themselves without actually attacking what they are saying. It's not the most easy way to do things, but it certainly is rewarding.
Gail, Melbourne, Australia
September 04, 2008 9:57pm
Seems to me that if people are calling you closed-minded because you're a skeptic, then you're doing it wrong. Isn't skepticism all about setting aside your preconceived biases of how things ought to be, and thinking critically about everything? That's not closed-minded. That's open-minded.
Johanna, College Park, MD
September 05, 2008 6:46am
I live in a small town where no one is the least bit critical in their thinking. It is refreshing to see a site like this. Keep up the good work.
Lance, Portsmouth, OH
September 07, 2008 8:02am
I think we're missing something bigger here. With critical thinking we're telling people that they can't trust their own exprience. If you look through comments on different posts on this site, the one thing people seem to have the most problem is giving up on the validity of anecdotes.
What we're asking them is to let go of the notion that the world as it seems to them is real. This was even hard on Einstein when confronted with the implications of Quantom Mechanincs.
Without a well constructed critical framework to judge the world through, just letting go of the perceived universe can seem both scary and crazy. Also there's no wonder why it might look like faith to some.
Side note: I don't think you can always be nice about it or calm. At my former job a coworker came in with a shirt showing Ronald McDonald dress up like hitler. As a Jew and also as a human I told him the shirt wasn't funny. He replied that they are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the world. To that I could only reply(with alot of anger) that if he equtes the mass murder of millions of people and most of my family with burgers than he's a f@#$!ng idiot.
Shahar S. Lubin, Ko-Si-Chang, Thailand
September 08, 2008 12:38am
Shahar: It's true that we all have things that will trigger us to lose our temper, and I understand why you reacted the way you did. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's almost always better to remain calm, if you can manage it. Calling a person a f@#$!ng idiot pretty much destroys any chance you had of them listening to what you have to say. And saying "You're not allowed to talk about that because it offends me" only leads them to believe that people who disagree with them are overly emotional, selfish, afraid of thinking differently, and unwilling or unable to argue the actual merits of the position.
Yes, your coworker's shirt was offensive. There are two possibilities. Either he meant it to be offensive (because he likes thinking that people who disagree with him are all the things I mentioned above), in which case all you did was give him the satisfaction of getting reaction he was looking for, or else he'd never thought about it from the point of view of someone who'd lost family in the Holocaust (this is more likely than you think), in which case maybe you could have taught him something.
Johanna, College Park, MD
September 08, 2008 9:42am
I Don't Offend People too much. If you can feel that arguing is not alright for a certain time. don't argue. Keep our voices low while destroying bunks.
JeromeClemente, Manila, Philippines
September 09, 2008 7:14am
The thing that bugs me about the skeptic movement in general is that even the term used to describe it makes it by definition at odds with others. To always be debunking and proving things wrong makes all skeptics come off as the aforementioned "grumpy curmudgeons". I would really prefer skeptics focus much more on celebrating new advances in science, and less on debunking claims. You can draw a parallel to the media here and positive vs. negative stories.
It's a shame that the term skeptic means that you are skeptical of something, rather than some other term that could be more positive. It's also a shame that scientology is taken, because it could probably be a more appropriate term.
Shane, Guelph, ON, Canada
September 18, 2008 7:05pm
Failing to check your facts when you have the opportunity increases your odds of looking like a gullible stooge, which is why I seem to spend half my waking hours on Snopes these days!
If you can send an e-mail, you can check the accuracy first.
PS - I love your captcha. So much better than unreadable letters floating in aspic...and a chance to sharpen your arithmetic skills!
Elaine, Chattanooga TN
September 19, 2008 4:49pm
Good article, Brian. However, you should have emphasized more that self-appointed skeptics really need to know their stuff before getting into confrontational debates.
If you don't have the arguments down pat, backed up by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence, then you'll only anger your non-skeptical friend...and give skepticism a bad name to boot.
For example, you (Brian) don't have much credibility on certain topics (eg, mostly environmental and agricultural issues) because your posts reflect a clear libertarian political agenda. I agree with your analysis of most topics on your podcast, but I'm now very skeptical of your skepticism. Credibility is very hard to regain once lost.
Bottom line: do your homework or keep your mouth shut!
Cheers, Sparky
Sparky, Durham, NC
September 30, 2008 7:16am
And yet another hardcore liberal listener points out that good science can only be driven by the "correct" political stance. Never heard that one before...
Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
September 30, 2008 7:22am
Eric: In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, reality has a liberal bias -- deal with it. (See Conservapedia.com for all the evidence you need.)
Cheers, Sparky
(PS. What is this "political correctness" of which you speak? I've never heard libertarians/conservatives use that phrase before...)
Sparky, Durham, NC
September 30, 2008 7:41am
Conservatives cling to ancient superstitions, liberals invent new ones.
Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 05, 2008 7:34pm
Thank you for reiterating that skeptics do not need to resort to the tactics (ironically) of door-to-door missionaries. I played this podcast for my friend who recently brought a family member to tears by calling her attention to the improbability of God. He is a newly converted atheist, and many such converts forget that religious deprogramming takes time and sensitivity (IE don't bring it up the day of their savior's birth). He has learned his lesson
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle
Nora Lee, Medicine Hat, Alberta
January 04, 2009 12:14pm
Brian,
You would not believe, (no, I think you would...) how many people I know that just buy into B.S automatically.
What is embarrassing is how many people do not challenge anyone to, what are deemed automatically, as "factual Statements" on any topic.
E.g
I was in a bar and a bunch of us were talking when a co-worker stated “Did you know that Campbellford, Ontario, has the most millionaires per square mile!” Almost with no hesitation everyone bought into this. I asked him where he got his facts from and he stated he could not remember. Yet, the general consensus was this was a statement of fact.
Yikes…………
Joseph, Toronto,Ont
February 15, 2009 10:30pm
Eric, it appears your expertise is in how to lose friends, how could you possibly be an expert in Mona Vie?
Joseph's analogy was correct. Evreyone loves to spread FALSE RUMORS and formulate opinions about things they know NOTHING about. How long did you drink Mona Vie? How many people have you tested, as to the lowering of cholesterol levels? Zero, thats what I thought.
I have actaully had 18 folks drink Mona Vie Pulse for 12 weeks and then go retest their cholesterol, and low in behold all 18 were lower. Imagine that!!!!!!
Eric you might want to turn over a new leaf, and read "How to win friends and influence people". It is then that you will become more happy in life and also more successful. Thats of course assuming you are somewhat happy now, and somewhat successful. I may be way off with that assumption though. Thats for you to decide.
Fred, Ohio
May 06, 2009 7:26am
As someone who is skeptical in a different way than what seems to be discussed here, I will inform you that people get offended not because you're dismantling a belief system, but because you have this attitude that you feel that they don't have the capacity to think for themselves. It's insulting and frustrating. You are blindly following science just as you accuse people who are skeptical in a different way of blindly following their religious beliefs. The two types of evidence you are comparing are SO different that it's impossible for you to claim one is more right than the other. I'm not here to "challenge" you, but rather give you more insight to understanding how to approach people who believe differently than you. I'm skeptical of a lot of things, SCIENCE included and for various valid and educated reasons. It doesn't make me incapable of evaluating things on my own. Blindly believing in what people are telling you, in any instance, is not a good idea. I respect that you're a scientist. But there are certain things, I'm sure, that you're not questioning that perhaps you should.
Elle, Chapel Hill
January 11, 2010 7:13am
Dear Elle,
How should we take that? I don't mean this as an attack, but how would you feel if someone said what you just did to you? Obviously you have strong convictions, but I think you might have missed a good chunk of the podcast if you honestly believe that the attitude is of 'you can't think for yourself'. The attitude is clearly, 'you're human and making a mistake'.
You characterize trust in science as 'blindly believing'. Not only is that simply wrong as there is much debate in science about validation, but it is insulting for the exact same reasons you cite.
I don't believe Mr Dunning is a scientist, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken. Being a scientist doesn't actually mean much, as is discussed in another podcast. Trust is not belief. Science only asks for your eyes, not your belief. Sorry that I can't remember who said that first.
Brandon, Falconer NY
March 03, 2010 6:50pm
Thank you for this podcast. For the Skeptics who read the comments, I'd like it to be known how much I love my Skeptic friends. It is refreshing, challenging and enjoyable to have those critical-thinking conversations about whatever conspiracy theories or new 'wonder products' are out. It is BRILLIANT when they suggest - and carry out - actual experiments to test various ideas and theories. And I find that they are still perfectly open-minded when it comes to other people's personal beliefs. I can't for the life of me see why scepticism should be expected to stand in the way of a nice personality!
I've learned a lot through my Skeptical friends (especially about testing theories through very fun experiments) and I'm tremendously glad they came clean about their inclinations.
Leanne, Canberra, Australia
April 29, 2010 11:48pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
I am always wary of being overly zealous in disabusing people of silly notions, but a few things get under my skin enough to warrant it. The biggest one is chain-emails. I have one friend who believes every email that talks about gang initiation rites- you know, flashing headlights at cars, etc, and when I see these 'official warnings' being passed along to dozens of people, I just hope other people check snopes.com as well. One time a mass-email was sent out at the capitol building (where I was working at a suitably menial job) that contained a demonstrably false (and easily researched) warning about invasive species or somesuch. In that case I did respond, but it's a shame because it left the original forwarder with egg on her face.
At the least, maybe people will stop putting me on chain-email lists...
ep thorn, washington, dc
August 26, 2008 11:49am