Why do some believers challenge JREF and actually test?

[jmercer]

I had posted the below in the Challenges forum in response to a comment by another poster... after thinking about it some more, I wanted to put it here to see if anyone else had any ideas on the topic. :)

(Original Thread) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56546&perpage=40&pagenumber=3)

My original post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jayrot
OK, I admit that you all make some very good points.

What do you say, however, to the point that, at any time during the year long period that his claim was being sorted out, Achau could have easily done a simple (even single) blind test.

I suppose this is my main point. As I said, I certainly applaud him for his determination to bring his claim to test. At the same time, I do criticize his bring the claim to test without (apparently) a real thought about whether he could or couldn't do it. Almost as if he needed an audience to put his claim to the test, as opposed to eternal anonyminity. Laziness or narcissism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a heckuva good question; it's in line with one of the most speculated-about topics around here... which is "Why do people believe?" I'll give you my opinion, FWIW - and it's speculative, of course. (This is about "true believers" - not deliberate frauds like Sylvia Browne, etc.)

Laziness? Never. Laziness, in my viewpoint, is usually an easy label to explain otherwise inexplicable reluctance. Narcissism? Possibly, for some people. But... I think it generally goes deeper than that.

The human mind is a strange place, often inconsistent and in direct conflict with itself.

People who believe in psychic phenomena are actually striving to establish control over the world in one form or another; "I have powers", or "I am special and communicate with beings with powers who favor me", or "I know what will happen next", etc. They find this sense of control comforting - even necessary.

All of it centers around the need to deal with their fear of the unknown or the uncontrollable - such as the future, death, and similar things they fear - and their sense of powerlessness concerning it. Hence, a belief in faith healing, mediums, mindreading, remote viewing and all of the other types of "powers". Because if any of it is "true", then any of the rest of it could also be true - opening "the door" to developing "powers". (Or access to those with powers, which in turn provides a form of control.)

Many with these needs that are driven toward this "solution" become fanatical. They fear the loss of control (albeit illusory!) to the point where anything threatening it is automatically rejected, without reason or consideration; usually on a vehemently emotional level. It's a strong, automatic emotional reaction to their deepest (perhaps hidden) fears - the very same fears that drove these people into an irrational belief system to begin with. Anything that appears to contradict their beliefs and threatens their illusory control is likewise rationalized away for the same reason.

The conflict, I believe, comes into play for people who are not so utterly consumed by their need for control that any doubts are ruthless suppressed by their minds. These are people who are strong enough to realize that on some - perhaps subconscious - level they have actually given up partial control of their lives for a comforting fantasy. These individuals have doubts that are openly unexpressed, perhaps, but doubts that exist and create a low-intensity conflict on some level in their minds. This low-intensity internal conflict eventually builds up over time until enough stress exists to force them to some form of action. At that time, they prove or disprove the validity of their beliefs. (Or validity of their doubts, if you prefer.)

I seriously doubt that this is a conscious conflict. In fact, I strongly suspect that it plays itself out on an emotional level, and forces judgements to be altered in ways that places these people in positions where some form of resolution is unavoidable.

The human mind, as I said, can be a strange place - and I've seen people make decisions that force them into situations where they have to face their fears or shortcomings, with no way out. I suspect that this includes people who need to confront any fears and doubts they have about their own "powers".

When they reach this point, some succeed. Some fail. Some can't take the stress, and shatter.

Even among those that succeed, one encounter with the truth may not be enough to overturn their craving for control; but it may be one significant battle won by reason in an internal war for real control - control of their minds and perception of reality. (For the lucky ones, it may be the final battle in a long war of attrition. )

For people that don't "win" in that one encounter, it may just increase the erosion of their "faith" in "powers", giving more strength to their doubts and desire for rationality. The "war" continues, but the rational part is stronger, and more likely to win future battles.

For those that "fail" and utterly reject the results, it may simply have triggered a stronger reaction of their original fears, forcing them even deeper into denial so that they embrace their beliefs more tightly.

Each person - and their reaction - is different, of course. And this is only my "two cents worth" of opinion, anyway. :)


Comments? Ideas?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Im special" is a powerful motor. But I think the real trick is to understand what makes us believe in anything at all. The mechanism that makes reasonable some belief against another...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by jmercer
All of it centers around the need to deal with their fear of the unknown or the uncontrollable - such as the future, death, and similar things they fear - and their sense of powerlessness concerning it. Hence, a belief in faith healing, mediums, mindreading, remote viewing and all of the other types of "powers". Because if any of it is "true", then any of the rest of it could also be true - opening "the door" to developing "powers". (Or access to those with powers, which in turn provides a form of control.)

Excellent points. I think a great deal of the pain in the human condition stems from our endless need for control, and our inability to attain it. Who doesn’t want to have an inordinate amount of control to protect our loved ones from all harm, or guide our destiny to the most rewarding end?

I think believers in any kind of woo or religion are comforted by feeling, or hoping, they have achieved a degree of control. Whether it be in the powers they believe they have attained, or the protection or favors a deity might grant in life or the thereafter, it’s all about control…you nailed it.

That's what separates Buddhism so much from other religions, in my opinion…in most respects it’s a very practical philosophy. I don’t subscribe to it wholeheartedly, but I feel that the less we attempt to let our desires and fears control us, the better.

[Beth]

While I've no doubt that control does motivate some people to cling to beliefs in the face of evidence against, it isn't adequate to explain most people. This idea of wanting control just doesn't jive with my experiences with those people. Few people actually claim control of such talents, or that those talents allow them more control of the uncontrollable. Instead, it's far more typical that they claim they have little or no control of their abilities. More typical is that they have had experiences for which the "rational" explanations are deemed inadequate.

Beth

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beth
While I've no doubt that control does motivate some people to cling to beliefs in the face of evidence against, it isn't adequate to explain most people. This idea of wanting control just doesn't jive with my experiences with those people. Few people actually claim control of such talents, or that those talents allow them more control of the uncontrollable. Instead, it's far more typical that they claim they have little or no control of their abilities. More typical is that they have had experiences for which the "rational" explanations are deemed inadequate.
But a common mistake is in assuming that just because they have no rational explanation for the experience, that none exists.

Take the example of sleep paralysis. We still hear examples of people starting stories of ghosts, angels and alien encounters with the words "I was in bed" or "I just woke up and..." or "I couldn't move a muscle".
It's a scary and powerful experience with no rational explanation - until someone explains the phenomena of sleep paralysis.

So it may be a combination of the motivations described above, combined with an unrealistic impression of the accuracy and objectivity of our own perceptions and mental functions.
People think their memories and perceptions are a great deal more accurate and unbiased than they actually are.

[hodgy]

They absolutely believe in their 'powers' and see no reason to doubt their own observations, especially when reinforced by great tracts of supporting documentation and peer and media confirmation.

On top of that, if they were the sort of people who understood the obvious value in proper blinded tests then they probably wouldn't beleive in the woo stuff in the first place.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Ashles
But a common mistake is in assuming that just because they have no rational explanation for the experience, that none exists.

Certainly, but my point is that control is not a primary motivation for the behavior of believers. Consider that most religions require that followers acknowledge and accept that a higher power has control over this world and their lives. Thus, religion does not provide people with control or even the illusion of control but rather the opposite.

Scientists, on the other hand, generally believe that through knowledge and understanding of the material world, they can control or predict what will happen with greater accuracy. Science has been far more efficacious than religion or belief in the paranormal in providing people with real control over their environment and their lives.

Thus, if you are trying to understand the motivations of believers, the idea that they are seeking control doesn't fit.

Beth

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beth
Certainly, but my point is that control is not a primary motivation for the behavior of believers. Consider that most religions require that followers acknowledge and accept that a higher power has control over this world and their lives. Thus, religion does not provide people with control or even the illusion of control but rather the opposite.
I disagree. Firstly, understanding is itself a form of control.
If you think "there is a God and I worship him", then you feel a sense of understanding and you 'know' how the world works.
"If I am good then I will go to heaven". You know the goals you are aiming for, you understand the rules of the system and you can make choices with known results.
Also you may feel a sense of superiority to those who do not worship the God you 'know' to exist - atheists, worshippers of different Gods etc.

Also people pray to God for help with matters that are beyond their control - helping people recover from illness, stay safe etc.

As well as this you now get to have control over your own death. No more is it an end - by your belief you have turned it into possibly the best thing that can happen. You have heaven to look forward to.

There is a very real aspect of control involved with a belief in a God or religion.
Even if it is simply that there are now 'rules' to existence and you know what they are and you can decide whether you are following them or not.

Scientists, on the other hand, generally believe that through knowledge and understanding of the material world, they can control or predict what will happen with greater accuracy. Science has been far more efficacious than religion or belief in the paranormal in providing people with real control over their environment and their lives.

Thus, if you are trying to understand the motivations of believers, the idea that they are seeking control doesn't fit.
You seem to be implying that was saying that believers seek control and scientists don't. This is not what I was saying.

I was saying that everyone wants control over as much as possible. Scientists attempt to achieve this by endeavouring to understand how the universe really works and how we can affect the mechanisms by which it works.
And they have obviously achieved a great many successes.

'Believers' attempt to achieve this by assuming that things happen in much more simplistic ways (eg. Religion, or Psychic methos by which one can just will things to happen, or prcognitive methods where one can see the future).
And their methods do not appear to have had any practical success.
But it appears that even the illusion of having the ability is desirable to many, even if there is no actual practical evidence.

For example Angela Patel was tested in the JREF challenge and failed in her attempt, but this had no actual impact on her belief in her ability.
Perhaps it is so tied into her self-identity that discarding the belief would be to discard much of what she considers positive about herself, even if that is built on self-deception.
(And this is not intended to be mean to Angela in any way, merely a possibility that is, in my opinion, reasonably likely)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth
Certainly, but my point is that control is not a primary motivation for the behavior of believers. Consider that most religions require that followers acknowledge and accept that a higher power has control over this world and their lives. Thus, religion does not provide people with control or even the illusion of control but rather the opposite.

Scientists, on the other hand, generally believe that through knowledge and understanding of the material world, they can control or predict what will happen with greater accuracy. Science has been far more efficacious than religion or belief in the paranormal in providing people with real control over their environment and their lives.

Thus, if you are trying to understand the motivations of believers, the idea that they are seeking control doesn't fit.

Beth

You made some interesting, points, Beth. I'd like to offer some counterpoints, if I may. :)

First - "powers" - regardless of whether the individual feels they control their talents, the fact that their talents "exist" gives them some hope for achieving control - and it implies that control is possible. If these powers don't exist, then the individual is faced with a situation where there is absolutely no hope for control in any form whatsoever... and that, of course, is the key fear. The fear of being utterly helpless in the face of the unknown or during an uncontrollable event.

Finding a mechanism that at least promises the possiblity of being able to influence such things provides comfort for people, directly or indirectly. I would suggest that those who are neediest are the ones who end up most fanatically convinced that their powers are real, etc. They are also the ones who will rationalize failures away.

Regarding religion - I would argue that for many religions, worship is a attempt to influence the unknown and (otherwise) uncontrollable events around us by supernatural proxy. (In the case of Christianity, the mere act of faithfully attempting to influence the world by placating God provides direct control over events at death - arguably the biggest "unknown and uncontrollable" event in any individual's life.)

Religion, as described, is an effort to exert control over the unknown and uncontrollable by influencing the supernatural embodied by God... so while it may appear that people are giving up control of their lives, they're actually sacrificing certain aspects of it in order to influence God to control the "unknown and uncontrollable."

[chillzero]

I think you have rather simplified things. People's feelings and motivations are much more complex.

For me - back in the days - it was about feeling valued, and having a function in the world - nothing to do with control.

I was never particularly well-off, or privileged, or massively popular. All I ever wanted to do was put the world right. To make things better for as many people as I could - including my family, and myself. To believe that money or position didn't matter - that I could still be important in the world - was very satisfying.

It is very persuasive to believe that simple, cheap or free things like crystals, herbs, good deeds, positive thoughts, karma and so on would stand you on good stead to put the world right. It is easy to be persuaded that money - large corporations, politicians, banks - is truly the source of all evil leading to the world's pollution from corruption, degradation, fuels, radiowaves, microwaves, electricity and so on. If a person does not have the inclination, or resources to look into any of this, they can remain deluded for quite some time (about 10 years in my case).

I don't know if I have explained this very well - it was more about having a role in the world - about belonging, and being able to do something without having to have money behind me, than about control.
I never really gave much thought to fearing the unknown because I believed it was all taken care of, one way or another: that I could always find some strength to get through - and that I had all nature's resources to support me.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by cabby
I think you have rather simplified things. People's feelings and motivations are much more complex.


Perhaps. Or perhaps the complexity is a structure built upon the simpler and more primal motivations. :)

Originally posted by cabby

For me - back in the days - it was about feeling valued, and having a function in the world - nothing to do with control.

I was never particularly well-off, or privileged, or massively popular. All I ever wanted to do was put the world right. To make things better for as many people as I could - including my family, and myself. To believe that money or position didn't matter - that I could still be important in the world - was very satisfying.


In other words, to be able to influence and control the events of the world without social standing or wealth? That's a form of control. :)

The goals are certainly laudable, and probably match the way most people feel.

Originally posted by cabby

It is very persuasive to believe that simple, cheap or free things like crystals, herbs, good deeds, positive thoughts, karma and so on would stand you on good stead to put the world right. It is easy to be persuaded that money - large corporations, politicians, banks - is truly the source of all evil leading to the world's pollution from corruption, degradation, fuels, radiowaves, microwaves, electricity and so on. If a person does not have the inclination, or resources to look into any of this, they can remain deluded for quite some time (about 10 years in my case).


Understood. And this is what I meant in my OP and following post - belief in these items presents a mechanism (fantasy mechanism, of course) whereby an individual feels they have some control over things that they really don't. They feel empowered by it. :)

Originally posted by cabby

I don't know if I have explained this very well - it was more about having a role in the world - about belonging, and being able to do something without having to have money behind me, than about control.
I never really gave much thought to fearing the unknown because I believed it was all taken care of, one way or another: that I could always find some strength to get through - and that I had all nature's resources to support me.

Control is merely a word that implies power, or influence... the fact that you thought that the unknown was "all taken care of, one way or another" - is a way of delegating the the actual power to a concept (Taoist, Gaia, Jesus, whatever) who will take care of things as long as you do the right thing. Basically, an appeal to a supernatural proxy. Even the use of crystals, beads and concepts like karma gives you "power" over things that you would otherwise be helpless before.

It's one helluva seductive trap - and I don't exclude myself from it's influences, either. :)

[John Jackson]

I think there’s a difference between those who claim to have psychic type abilities and those who believe in them.

My take on this, and I would really like to know more, is that those who believe in mysterious forces astrology/angels/psychics etc. are actually giving up some control over their lives. They don’t want the responsibility of control; they want easy answers, something to turn to and somewhere to place blame when things go wrong.

Those who claim psychic abilities, on the other hand, do seem to want to feel special. It’s more an emotional thing. It gives them a sense of purpose, a meaning to their life, and of course, it can be exciting. Wannabe spiritualist mediums, for example, justify what they do by stating that they don’t do it for the money; they do it to “help people�. I think they’re actually helping themselves as much as anyone.

That’s just my superficial look at it, but it would be interesting to get more insight into those who claim psychic abilities and those who simply believe in them.

As to why self-proclaimed psychics rarely submit themselves to testing. I think that they have too much emotional involvement invested in their belief to have it taken away from them, so they avoid the issue.

[Luke T.]

There's a certain amount of ego involved on a believer's part. If someone witnesses something for which they have no explanation, (a weird light in the sky, say) they are a blank slate and whatever explanation is given first that fits their memory of the event is accepted and takes root. With this newfound belief in UFOs, to stay with the example, all other tales of UFOs are now given more creedence. What might have been met with skepticism before has breached the biggest hurdle with this first-hand experience. After that, it is all downhill.

Now if someone comes along later and introduces evidence which suggests what they saw was a weather balloon, their ego is threatened. "I'm not that stupid! I wouldn't mistake a weather balloon for a UFO." And then the ego starts playing with the memory. "Besides, how can a weather balloon fly across the sky at 8 million miles per hour and make sudden turns?"

That's one aspect.

Another aspect is that with Belief comes a sense of belonging. A community feeling. "I'm not alone. There are others who think like I do." People will travel vast distances to meet like thinkers. ;)

A third aspect is that an education goes a long way toward a defense against irrational beliefs. And educating oneself is hard labor. Not everyone wants to work that hard. So an uneducated person leaves themself wide open to the "tabula rasa" effect I started this post out with.

A TV program shows a clip of a mysterious light in the sky. Spooky music is dubbed over the footage. "Could these be visitors from outer space?" Chalk on a blank slate.

A fourth aspect is closure. Dad died before his daughter was ready, so Dad continues the relationship from the beyond.

Control is certainly a part of it. And a search for some kind of sense in a confusing, painful world. I can definitely see signs of that in some people. Especially doom-and-gloom people. They shriek warnings and tell people what they need to do (OR ELSE!), but underneath it all, it's like they can't wait for the end of the world to come. There's some sick desire to see everybody else get what's coming to them. That's why Jesus is coming or the world is freezing over in the next few years. That way, I'll still be around to see you bastards suffer.

[Z]

The issue of control is one of great interest to me. For my own part, I am a stubborn and argumentative individual. I want discussions, in particular, to go my way, and I get very irate when they don't. I'm sure you've all seen how I am when I lock horns on a thread - I crow triumphantly when I perceive that I've subdued my opponent, and slink away sullenly when it's clear my arguments aren't up to snuff.

What's particularly funny about this is - it's solely in discussion that I act this way. In my personal life, it's all about relinquishing control. Oh, I control my children fairly well - that is, I employ a strict and consistent discipline with them, maintain a loose schedule, etc. But for my wife, it's all about her choices, her freedom, etc. I've been blasted on more than one occasion for not 'controlling' my wife. But, IMO, she is her own person; she belongs to no one. Her choices are her own, as are the consequences of those choices.

I also have relinquished financial control to her. Why? 1) Because I am the house-hubby. I don't earn the money, so I'm not going to try to control how it's spent. 2) Because I suck at finances. I'm the kind of guy who buys a computer when the rent hasn't been paid yet, then wonders if the homeless shelter will let me plug it in.

I've stunned our housemate for my lack of control. She is the sort who usually seeks out men who will dominate her and control her utterly. Being around me has changed her life, and I'm not just bragging. She has turned her whole life around, simply because I refuse, utterly, to control her - even to manipulate her, even subtly. I tell her what I would like to see her do, but it's right there in the open, and it's always preceeded and followed by admonitions for her to do what SHE feels is right.

Some point to the fact that I'm a Wiccan priest as proof that I'm seeking control over the unknown, but nothing could be further from the truth. I revel in the chaos and the unpredictible nature of nature - well, unpredictible to an uneducated lout like myself, anyway. I have no illusions about this: what I do is simple folk psychology. I offer people some of what they think they need to get by, nothing more. And for the most part, my decision to become a priest has been fueled by practical consideration: my wife is the Temple Head for our Temple, and in Wicca (at least, in our tradition) it is useful to have both a Priest and a Priestess, so I basically serve to support her.

Heck, I don't even think I control my own choices, much less the forces of nature or the favors of Goddess. I'm impulsive, wreckless, prone to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, prone to DOING whatever comes to mind with no regards to consequences... And I'm happy that way.

If there's anything that I can honestly say makes me significantly different from most other people, it's that I know who I am and what I am, and I'm perfectly happy with the person I am. I'm perfectly happy not knowing what happens when I die, perfectly reconciled to the fact that nothing lasts forever, and perfectly willing to ride the storm when things are bad, knowing that things always change. I'm not afraid of the future, I'm not afraid of death, and I'm not afraid of life. I'm not even afraid of the Law or the Government. What happens, happens. You either live life how you want to, or you're going to miss out - because there's no guarantee that you're going to get another opportunity.

What the heck does this have to do with the JREF challenge or belief? I dunno. It's 1:30 AM here, I'm sleepless, and I'm rambling.

:D

[Anti_Hypeman]

I wonder why more of them dont take the challenge. Would Billy Blanks turn down a million dollar Tae Bo challenge? No way, not for any of the reasons they give for not taking it.

In my experiement trying to get a table at a psychic fair I have been contacting every paranormal organization I can find in my state. I cant find a single one even willing to discuss the challenge. They cant give a single good reason for not taking the million and they know it.

My only conclusion is that despite the large number of believers only a few psychics in the entire world actually think they have powers.

Why the split, millions who believe in the paranormal but so few who claim to have the powers actually believe in it.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Some point to the fact that I'm a Wiccan priest as proof that I'm seeking control over the unknown, but nothing could be further from the truth. I revel in the chaos and the unpredictible nature of nature - well, unpredictible to an uneducated lout like myself, anyway. I have no illusions about this: what I do is simple folk psychology. I offer people some of what they think they need to get by, nothing more. And for the most part, my decision to become a priest has been fueled by practical consideration: my wife is the Temple Head for our Temple, and in Wicca (at least, in our tradition) it is useful to have both a Priest and a Priestess, so I basically serve to support her.


And I think, in this paragraph, perhaps lie two good points - one specific to you, one specific to my OP.

From this and other posts you've made, Zaay, it's pretty clear to me that you don't believe in the supernatural. That being the case, you wouldn't fit the profile of the individuals in my OP. In fact, it sounds to me like your personal attraction to your religion is more from a sense of communing with others than from any kind of supernatural involvement. :)

As to the other point I think this may illustrate, I'd like to pass this by you folks and see what you think. :)

There are two major catagories of those who try to control their world via the supernatural, and it has to do with how they try to exert that control. They are:

1) Direct control
2) Control via proxy

Direct Control
People who believe they exert direct control over the world via supernatural means are the ones who claim to have "powers". They are also, by far, the least numerous.

Control via proxy
These consist of several types, which I'll list below - but they also break down into three catagories - "Person", "Place" and "Thing". The people who approach the supernatural this way are by far the majority, as I believe you'll realize as you read on. :)

Persons
A) Control by influencing a supernatural being or a being with supernatural powers (spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, Gods, Goddesses, psychics, "spiritual healers", etc.) via direct appeal. Appeals can be anything from gifts to money, prayers, acts of sacrifice, etc. (I add in psychics and "spiritual healers" because some claim to be the ones with the powers. They're not acting as intermediaries.)

B) Control by influencing a supernatural being by indirect appeal by using an intermediary (Priests, Rabbi's, mediums, psychics, "spiritual healers", etc. I am repeating psychics and healers in that some of them claim to speak to "spirits", "angels" or use "God's power" instead of their own - and thus are acting as intermediaries.)

Places
A) Control by utilizing "holy places", such as the Baths at Lourdes, churches, and any other physical location that is assigned supernatural value or powers - or has the "attention" of beings with supernatural powers.

Things
A) Control by utilizing objects that have "supernatural powers", such as medicine bags, crystals, beads, holy water, holy relics, etc.

Anyone who uses ANY of these means to influence the unknown or uncontrollable aspects of the world is seeking control over the world around them by doing so. Or at least, that's my argument. :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I wonder why more of them dont take the challenge. Would Billy Blanks turn down a million dollar Tae Bo challenge? No way, not for any of the reasons they give for not taking it.

In my experiement trying to get a table at a psychic fair I have been contacting every paranormal organization I can find in my state. I cant find a single one even willing to discuss the challenge. They cant give a single good reason for not taking the million and they know it.

My only conclusion is that despite the large number of believers only a few psychics in the entire world actually think they have powers.

Why the split, millions who believe in the paranormal but so few who claim to have the powers actually believe in it.


Interesting. I would agree that if NO one can come up with a good excuse to take the test, then I would think most are knowing frauds then...

Let me know if you get the table. I'll drive down and help!