It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Psychological Assessment of Skeptic's

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Being skeptical is logic and true to a point, but there are some individuals that display this so called 'tactic' in a way that is truly negative and narrow minded. Its as if this is a 'personality trait'. One who never believes no matter if the truth was 'crystal clear'. "Chronic Skepticism" could be rather defined as another 'personality disorder'. Too much skepticism is pessimistic, and would very well come across as "Imbalanced." Part of where the skeptic personality originates from is what has strongly been reinforced within our society. So basically it is a 'sheeple' mentality. Unless we Learn to Open our minds we cannot be aware of finding out the truth of any given scenario. Some skeptic's will remain as skeptic's.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Leaving aside the question of psychological analysis (which could apply to “believers,” ‘skeptics” and everyone else) when dealing with the sort of subjects that come up on a board like this, many stories are false to one degree or another and NEED to be debunked if your real interest is getting to truth. So, it doesn’t matter what the psychological profile of a skeptic might be, in most cases he/she is doing you a favor by helping to separate the wheat from the chaff.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think that the Old Classic Song of David Bowie's -"Ground Control To Major Tom" is a classic version of "slipping through the boundaries" of the 'sleeping mundane existence of sheeple's.' Also the door's classic-"Break on through To The Other Side." The message I think is 'clear' its there for those who are 'Aware.' Heavy 'skeptic's' are not Aware, awake or Open to the 'Real Existence' of Life.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I agree completely. The overly-skeptical type are often pessimistic and sarcastic as well. Honestly I think they are afraid of something but I can't tell you exactly what. They are afraid to believe many things that fall outside of their current beliefs.

Robert Anton Wilson, in his 8-circuit model of consciousness, notes that there's a time in everyone's life around infancy where we have to make a decision: is it safe to venture out from our mothers, or is it dangerous out there? And all the little babies who decide it's too dangerous to venture out, they tend to become reserved, shy, more easily afraid, not as outgoing. My best guess would be that this has something to do with it.

Everything is true; there is nothing to "debunk," "skeptics."



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Well, sometimes it actually is a blurry picture of Venus and not a Mothership and it's useful to have people around to effectively make that case. I don't know that the term "sheeple" adds anything to civil discourse. And if you're talking about "breaking on through to the other side" it's especially important to retain a skeptical component to your personality to avoid being sucked into all sorts of illusory rabbit holes.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Not for me
, I was a fat baby. I didn’t want to come out, of that womb I tired my hardest to stay in there lol. I for one am skeptical, but not in the sense that anything paranormal is not true. I believe in certain things, and do not believe in certain things.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
materialists are skeptical of something they have not yet experienced. If they experience the true spirit, they are no longer materialists.

The true spirit is the ability to re-yoke with the spirit that moves us. This process of meditation by which the mind is aware of the mind, conscious of its consciousness, is known as Samadhi.

Samadhi is the most important word in yoga, because it is the state by which the individual continues to re-unite themselves to the spirit that animates them.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Everything is true; there is nothing to "debunk," "skeptics."


I don't think Wilson would have agreed with you on that. He wrote about wearing the skeptic's hat in evaluating perceptions while experiencing non-ordinary reality.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


We're not talking about being analytical and being able to separate fiction from fact. We're talking about people who feel like it's almost their duty or purpose in life to go around being skeptical of everything, as if everything they hear (or maybe everything just related to one certain subject they are particularly biased against) is automatically to be doubted. As I said, the same type of people are also often sarcastic and pessimistic, the kind of people who enjoy not only "debunking" but also making a mockery of the people they are talking to, etc. Overall it is a very negative mindset to carry yourself around in, and imo limits creativity.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
For that matter, Wilson was extremely skeptical of accepted versions of reality, i.e. that of what you're calling the "sheeples."



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by bsbray11
Everything is true; there is nothing to "debunk," "skeptics."


I don't think Wilson would have agreed with you on that. He wrote about wearing the skeptic's hat in evaluating perceptions while experiencing non-ordinary reality.


I just said that to hook people who really are afraid of something.

What are you afraid of?

I believe what I stated is true, though, regardless of what RAW thinks, because I am not RAW, or anyone else. I am me only.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
We're not talking about being analytical and being able to separate fiction from fact..

OK, I hear you on that. Two points again: The flip side of the coin--it's also somewhat sarcastic and a limiting generalization to describe people as "sheeple." Secondly, someone who is irrationaly predisposed to skepticism on a given subject is actually useful in helping to cut through the chaff. It doesn't matter what their psychological issues might be if they are actually correct on a given matter. You're spinning your wheels complaining about their orientation by calling them names. It's not going to change anyone.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you afraid of?


It's prudent to be afraid. If you are genuinely attempting to expand your consciousness into non-ordinary realms of reality there is a great deal to be afraid of--for starters (to put it tems of one paradigm) the possible destruction of individual personality. Not everyone can accept that challenge and it's not necessarily a fair criticism to accuse people of being fearful.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
OK, I hear you on that. Two points again: The flip side of the coin--it's also somewhat sarcastic and a limiting generalization to describe people as "sheeple."


Why are you saying this to me?


Secondly, someone who is irrationaly predisposed to skepticism on a given subject is actually useful in helping to cut through the chaff.


So what? Then they go about their pessimistic, sarcastic business again. I don't need a "skeptic" around to tell me what's right or wrong; I actually prefer to think for myself and often disagree with the attitude "skeptics" take anyway.


You're spinning your wheels complaining about their orientation by calling them names. It's not going to change anyone.


I don't remember calling anyone names. But come on. It's not like anyone is just using name-calling to make their point anyway. Don't take it personally and get hung up on it. I wasn't even the one who said "sheeple."



It's prudent to be afraid.


I completely, 100% disagree. It's NEVER useful or beneficial in any way to be afraid. Even when your life is in danger, being afraid only ties up your mind instead of allowing you to act more logically. Ask any martial arts instructor.

I am not afraid of losing my ego, either. Egos are useless and totally shed when you die anyway. Many people (including myself) think it useful to transcend the ego before death.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Here we are again with the whole "skeptics are afraid" blanket statement again. I don't believe aliens are visiting earth. Do they exist - maybe. Are they visiting - I don't believe they are. Am I afraid - not at all.
Do ghosts exist - I really doubt it. Am I afraid - not at all.

I could go on with all of the "beliefs" that I don't buy into. Just because we want real tangible undeniable proof before we blindly believe in something does not make us afraid. Nothing to do with ego either.

Ironically, most people who have their faith in alien visitation mock Christians or other religious faiths - yet you have no more tangible proof of your belief than those who have religious beliefs.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Thanks all for the worthy and justifiable comments. Some not so, I would only be inclined to 'Agree to Disagree.'

[edit on 17-10-2009 by catalyst2466]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by catalyst2466
 


Just a suggestion? How about spending more time on researching whatever supports YOUR side of whatever divide and less time with this poisoning the well bs? Personally when people start this "people skeptical of my position is mentally challenged err crazy errr something" crap it denotes a rather large innability to prove their case since they feel the need to go on the warpath to justify themselves and attack those that don't see as they do.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Everyone is entitled to they're own opinion. No need to be rude, diplomacy is the right course for discussion. If you cannot do this then I suggest you move on Elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by catalyst2466
 


That's funny. Considering the very nature of this thread is little more than poisoning the well tactics in the usual line of "skeptics" versus "believers" bs. Like I said, if you spent more time proving your case and less time attacking those that don't agree you might have better sucess.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
Well, sometimes it actually is a blurry picture of Venus...

And sometimes people just make stuff up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Theres an interesting article here about pseudo-scepticism which contains this handy comparative chart listing the various attributes of closed minded cynics and open minded sceptics:


Open-minded skeptics

*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence




Closed-minded cynics

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join