Delusional and Woo.

I’m going to cut to the chase – it’s patronising to tell people they’re deluded and harming themselves and others based on what they believe in. We all have delusions of some sort, and if they’re harmful the chances are that individual will have a care network already in place – GP, social workers, care workers, psychiatrists etc.

It’s good to be concerned for another person and their welfare but it isn’t the place of a stranger to diagnose somebody else as mentally ill or delusional. There is a weird middle ground that some skeptics inhabit from which they justify dismissing people and their beliefs a priori as “caring”. Nothing says ‘I care’ quite like calling someone out as ‘delusional’, suggesting they aren’t quite there in the head and that they cannot take responsibility for themselves. This is especially patronising when you consider than not all delusions are harmful (and, in the case of ghosts, a belief can actually help).

Similar to this is the use of the word ‘woo’ to dismiss someone based on what they believe.

Woo is (believe it or not) an insult.  It says ‘‘I am judging you as someone who believes in silly ideas and I am lumping you in with other airheads who believe silly things too. There is no hope for you, you are clearly prone to stupidity and bad thinking’. It says ‘You’re a joke. I am better than you, stupid’.

I was called ‘woo’ by countless people in the past because I believed things that they thought were too stupid to comprehend. I never listened to those people because dismissing a person or an idea as woo takes all seriousness out of an objection the person using the word has with the idea they are labeling as woo. If a belief or an idea is based on bad scientific practice then call out the bad science! If those people who had called me and my beliefs ‘woo’ had said ‘I think you are mistaken, research has shown those sounds you captured are probably not ghosts’ I might have listened. I might have learned this stuff a lot quicker!

Not every person who believes in an idea supported by bad science does so because they don’t care about scientific accuracy, and a lot of people who identify as skeptics could do with taking this little fact on board. I think, too easily, people are seen as ‘an enemy of reason’ who cannot be reasoned with. but why would anyone step outside of the comfort their belief offers them when they and their ideas are just dismissed as ‘delusional’ or ‘woo’? It is entirely possible for people to reach a conclusion about  topic that you don’t agree with without being delusional and at harm from themselves.

Lets not beat about the bush – having no interest in engaging with someone regarding a difference of opinion but dismissing that person with a derogatory label is aggressive and intolerant. There. I said it.

 

9 thoughts on “Delusional and Woo.

  1. Matt Cardier says:

    As a Christian rationalist Fortean I confess to being thought.. odd.. by quite a number of people. Of course being a Christian I try not to laugh at other religions because I’m aware that from a purely rationalist point of view Christianity is just as irrational. I’m fascinated with ghosts and cryptozoology in general, and plenty of other “Woo” subjects but trying to explain to people the nuances of Fortean scepticism…

    For me the point at which I “come out fighting” is when something unscientific is patently dangerous. A big one at least here in Australia is the Anti-vaccination brigade whose attacks on medicine has seen once rare diseases starting to return in at least one area here, and they are quite vocal, as are the anti-fluoride people. I have big arguments about this- on Facebook at least- and while I’ve probably been known to be insulting it is not so much because I believe I am better than them so much as that I believe that anti-vaccers are putting their own and other children at grave risk. Similarly Global Warming deniers with fake or irrelevant degrees- and again in Australia most of our top politicians do not believe in global warming. Or an ex-flatmate who had some interesting views on alternative science- we had some interesting chats- before I realised he was a neo-nazi and the conspiracy theories really fell into place!

    Thanks however for this reminder. I’m sure I’ve been dismissed in the past by both Athiests and Christians, and certainly when I was hard-line fundamentalist (which I no longer am) I probably did the same to atheists and spiritualists of any description. The ex-flatmate I mentioned probably had me throwing a few derogatory comments towards him, but people who believe in throwing other people out of countries based on religion and colour has that effect on me. But usually polite informed discussion is best.

    Hope this rant isn’t silly or offensive, I’ve been a fan since the Righteous Indignation podcast, even-handed scepticism is a bit of a rarity these days. Happy New Year!

    • Matt Cardier says:

      Hi CJ, cool! I was brought up in very strict religious household in which anything Fortean was “occult” but thankfully that didn’t affect me too much. Even if spooks don’t objectively exist I love the thrill of atmosphere and the idea of events from the past repeating themselves into the future… whatever the truth is 🙂

  2. alexd1812000 says:

    Thank you Hayley, a post like this has been long overdue, and I am pleased to see you spell out the issue here. Some of the tactics that certain psi sceptics use seem very childish, and at times abusive. Using the word “woo” does have the exact connotations you mentioned, and it is tantamount to calling someone delusional rather than actually having a reasoned debate with them. You raise a good point, why is bullying called for at all? Why is it is not possible to have a mature conversation and discuss the issues without retorting to ad hominem attacks?

    Have you been following some of the public debates Rupert Sheldrake has been involved in recently? There are a lot of very childish tactics on display that skeptics use in an effort to discredit his work. It is bizarre that some scetpics feel a need to resort to such behaviour instead of having a well-tempered discussion about the actual science like adults.

  3. John Stumbles says:

    Dear Hayley, I think you’re spot on calling out those of us who bandy about terms like “woo”, “quackery” etc.

    And, yes, I admit I do it, though I’m trying to wean myself off it. I’m not saying we should never use such terms, just that we should think about what effect it has if and when we do use them, and what we are trying to achieve: do we want to change the views of those we disagree with, and if so do such terms help or do they insult and alienate their targets? Are we using them as convenient, maybe lazy, shorthand when talking to fellow-skeptics? Or are we even trying to gain kudos amongst club skeptics?

    I don’t know if you follow Jonny Scaramanga’s “Leaving Fundamentalism” blog: he writes intelligently and perceptively about trying to engage with Christians, and with formerly fellow fundamentalists, e.g. here. I think he’s worth a read.

    I have also scribbled a little about Respecting Each Others’ Beliefs.

    regards,
    John S

  4. Amos Oliver Doyle says:

    Hi Haley: I am a first-time reader of your blog. If this post is an example of your thought processes I am sure I will become an avid fan. You display a lot of straight thinking in this post. I deplore lables. No person deserves a label applied to his or her person or to his or her beliefs. We all are much more than what a label implies. Anyone who labels people as skeptic, pseudoskeptic, or woomeister is to me just evidence that I am not going to find much intellectual content in their comments whether it be in a blog, book, magazine article or research study. A label is a cheap way to say ‘case closed’ not worthy of further discussion. – AOD

  5. Kennedy says:

    Amos Oliver Doyle I have been reading your spiritual website recently. I appreciate how you have tried to take Joseph Jastrow, Joe Nickell and other skeptics of the mediums you believe are genuine but in each of your articles you have called these men “pseudoskeptics” and other labels. I think you have contradicted yourself 🙂 But I really enjoy your take on Patience Worth, it would be interesting to know what the owner of this website thinks about it.

  6. Amos Oliver Doyle says:

    Kennedy: point taken! It is just that it is difficult to find a term to describe people who have an agenda; that is, an unwavering bias against anything that falls outside of the norms of what they think are mainstream current belief systems. That can also include persons on both sides of an argument. What to call those people? ‘Skeptic’ is not really right as it demeans people who are true skeptics; people who are open to new thought and really try to consider all sides of paranormal issues and to discuss them in a civilized manner. Pseudo-skeptic, as I use it, has a connotation not only of a biased agenda and a closed mind but also implies an abrasive condescending demeanor in discussing these issues. Help me to find a more appropriate descriptive word that is not a ‘label’ and I will be happy to use it in the future. – AOD

  7. Kesther says:

    My gosh thank you!
    I know this article is reeeaally old, but I needed an article like this.
    This is why I don’t like joining most skeptic forums.
    Rather than talking and debating like adults, too many are way too quick to be condescending, dismissive, and out right insult someone the second they say the sentence “Hello, I’m open to the possibility of ghosts and the paranormal”.
    And then they say they’re doing the person and/or society a huge favor by giving up or dismissing ‘harmful’ beliefs. That’s a shame.
    We’re not children.
    While I understand getting frustrated about too many people getting a tad bit overly excited, labeling everyday events as supernatural, and vehemently refusing to hear other explanations, that’s really no excuse for incivility.

Share Your Thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.