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 the difficulties.
Filed under Logic & Persuasion
| Skeptoid #116 August 26, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 116, August 26, 2008
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4116
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.
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
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, B.
"How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
26 Aug 2008. Web.
18 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4116>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 35 comments
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
Fred,
How did the control groups fare?
Henk van der Gaast, Sydney
October 10, 2010 9:16pm
I think where scepticism fails is in inadequate recognition of the consequences. A Skeptic is a person who steps aside from the entire pattern of media propaganda that is intended to mislead, divert, misinform and disempower
People are full of crap because they are vessels into which crap is poured. Prejudice is fed. Vilification is encouraged (and called "free speech"). Truth is denied. Denial is encouraged. Children and adults are dumbed down.
Creationism is not a theory about the origin of species - It is fascist politics in religious form. Spiritual charlatanism is not about alternative healing it is about undermining reason - replacing consideration with doctrine in order to maintain power hierarchy. Catholicism is far more about politics than it is about religion. As the amount of sexual abuse and the number of priests mistresses shows, within the hierarchy vast numbers do not believe the dogmas anyway
Know your enemy. Media consolidation is not about big business - it is about centralising the control of awareness.
The belief that skepticism is merely about educated reason and awareness is often the last shade to fall from our eyes
It is about politics.
Phi, Sydney
March 15, 2011 4:14pm
Strange then that sceptics demand objective rationalisation based on evidence and observation. Objective from religious, social, political or personal prejudice.
For example, how about some evidence for all those claims Phi. Newscorp is all about control and not profit? Are you sure about that? As it seems awfully good at the profit thing. The entire media being designed to misinform? ALL of it? Every single publication or broadcast in any format? (That is what "entire" means). Bold claims, and I'm sceptical. Where's the evidence?
If your scepticism is informed by politics, instead of your politics informed by obkective scepticism, you are not sceptical.
the illuminatus, reptoid mountain
March 24, 2011 2:14pm
I don't think you are in a position to offer the mountains of space required Illy
Yes I do think - especially in Australia - the press and media are far more about control than profit. That is why they are prepared to be so chronically bad as both Newspapers and TV stations
Nowadays we read overseas newspapers or use the internet - and I now never watch commercial TV - its crap - even when you record and skip the ads.
Phi, Sydney
April 04, 2011 1:04am
Which is an opinion not evidence. Never mind. Objective evidence unbiased by personal belief or politics is the basic foundation of scepticism, and science in general. A brief look at how studies are formed, and the methods of preventing such biases, blinding, double blinding, control groups, statistical significance, and the likes are a pretty heavy concern when claiming to be skeptic.
Especially if you are accusing others of prejudicing their data.
Given your statements in other threads, you may wish to look into this Phi.
illuminatus, Reality. Kinda.
April 04, 2011 9:48am
I'm still on Illuminatus' side on Newscorp.
If they werent in it for the money they couldnt have any of the control that Phi suggests.
Sure, they have readership demographics that they target and sure, these too may have similar philosophies to the organisation.
Surprisingly so do lots of manufacturers and power suppliers.
Do you really think teenagers think they look good in those fashions they have worn over the years.
Surely this isnt about control other than for profit.
Looking back on the posts of late I realise I am the worlds most boring person. I always thought it was Brian and Maynard..
a new conspiracy..."the notions are coming!"
Henk V, Sydney Australia
September 01, 2011 1:52am
A VERY late response to Fred, Ohio, but the concepts I refer to herein are timeless and my comment is submitted in hopes that it may temper judgement of all "Freds".
Excerpted verbatim from his comment:
"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..."
This statement is a prime example of the reason that so many are skeptical of such claims AND their representatives. Bad spelling and an incorrect use of "lo and behold" are simply examples of a presumably well-meaning person with poor spelling and possibly skewed comprehension abilities.
When we read these errors or hear people say such things, many of us are inclined to think something like "There is the problem...they believe such nonsense because of poor educational achievement, comprehension difficulties, or simply low IQ.
That isn't always the case, of course. It is, however, a leading cause of "Freds" being written off as victims of their own misunderstanding of so many things. Whether Fred is correct or not about anything is undermined by his own knowledge and communication abilities. Sure, he is responsible for not pursuing an accurate understanding, but is he capable of achieving that? He is probably a good guy, just not qualified to get into scientific proclamations.
BTW, the best misuse of the phrase that I've encountered so far was: "Lowe and beholed". OUCH. I really don't ever want to be "beholed".
Dean, Texas
August 29, 2012 12:12am
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, or 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}
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