"Woo"

[Almo]

I've never liked this term. But I can't remember how I referred to it before coming to this forum, even though that wasn't too long ago.

Any ideas about where it came from? Any potential alternatives? I can't think of one myself. :(

Edit for grammar

[Darat]

Quick answer is don't use it! :) It isn't difficult to avoid.

Also you may find these threads useful:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37764

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=23532

[Almo]

Thanks for the interesting links, I should have found those myself, eh? :)

[Darat]

Thanks for the interesting links, I should have found those myself, eh? :)


It would have been difficult as you can't search for words under 4 characters in length, but I knew a crafty cheat (that I copied from someone else) - "Theremin" is normally mentioned in most of these threads so I searched on that instead.

[Nyarlathotep]

Quick answer is don't use it! :) It isn't difficult to avoid.

Also you may find these threads useful:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37764

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=23532

The problem with trying to avoid using the word woo is the lack of a good alternative. Is 'woo' REALLY less insulting than 'credophile' for instance. 'Beleiver' has too much of a religious connotation that really isn't accurate in the case of , for example, Moon landing denier or a homeopath. 'superstitious person' is both unweildy AND condescending. So what's left, Dim? Nutjob? Anti-skeptic?

One could use the names of the person's specific beliefs (i.e homeopath, astrology beleiver, conspiracy theorist) and that's probably the least insulting and best solution. Unfortunately, sometimes you need a word that encompasses the full spectrum of human delusion and 'Woo' is the best we've got.

[Flo]

The problem with trying to avoid using the word woo is the lack of a good alternative. Is 'woo' REALLY less insulting than 'credophile' for instance. 'Beleiver' has too much of a religious connotation that really isn't accurate in the case of , for example, Moon landing denier or a homeopath. 'superstitious person' is both unweildy AND condescending. So what's left, Dim? Nutjob? Anti-skeptic?

One could use the names of the person's specific beliefs (i.e homeopath, astrology beleiver, conspiracy theorist) and that's probably the least insulting and best solution. Unfortunately, sometimes you need a word that encompasses the full spectrum of human delusion and 'Woo' is the best we've got.

I use "woo", or its equivalent in French "zozo" (for "zozoterist", derived from esoterist), for the kind of credophiles who will swallow whole and at once all kinds of superstitions, weird beliefs, conspiracies, idiotic pseudotherapy, pseudoscience, and assorted uncompatible pet theories. Otherwise, I refer to the person's specific belief. I can respect someone who holds one belief, but not someone who will believe everything and anything as long as it is "anti-mainstream-evil-materialistic-science".

[John Jackson]

I must admit that I really do like the terms "woo" and "woo-woo" :D

They are a bit insulting though, so I have adopted the term "non-skeptic" instead, although that could be criticised as being arrogant.

You can't win, can you? :boggled:

[JMA]

I use "woo", or its equivalent in French "zozo" (for "zozoterist", derived from esoterist),

I've never red the word "zozo" in french in the context of the paranormal/pseudoscience debate. I suppose it's your way to call this people, but let's not people think it's widely use in french, because it is not...

[Rolfe]

Creduloid, fruitcake, nutjob.... I'm sure there are many, but whether anyone likes them any better than woo is probably a matter of taste.

Rolfe.

[Flo]

I've never red the word "zozo" in french in the context of the paranormal/pseudoscience debate. I suppose it's your way to call this people, but let's not people think it's widely use in french, because it is not...


I've always heard "zozo" used to described nutcases, like in "un drôle de zozo", long before I encountered it in the paranormal/pseudoscience debates on skeptic forums, like the forum des Sceptiques du Quebec.

[logical muse]

I've started using it on this forum, but with some reservations that may not be evident from the enthusiasm I display when I disparage those that we refer to as woo.

[Beth]

I don't like it and I don't use it nor do I use terms like creduloid, fruitcake, nutjob, etc. I also don't use terms like ni**er, kike, wop, gook, etc. I don't like calling people names, and the term is just a derogatory name used to degrade and dehumanize those who don't think like you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So how do we refer to people who tend to believe in things for which they have no evidence, without being condescending toward them?

~~ Paul

[kmortis]

I don't like it and I don't use it nor do I use terms like creduloid, fruitcake, nutjob, etc. I also don't use terms like ni**er, kike, wop, gook, etc. I don't like calling people names, and the term is just a derogatory name used to degrade and dehumanize those who don't think like you.
Interesting that the invective ni**er gets the Gunderscored treatment, but kike, wop, gook, and I'd suppose slope as well don't. What does that say about our sensitivity to that one little word?

[Beth]

So how do we refer to people who tend to believe in things for which they have no evidence, without being condescending toward them?

~~ Paul

I use the word 'believers'. Not perfect, but at least not derogatory.

[Beth]

Interesting that the invective ni**er gets the Gunderscored treatment, but kike, wop, gook, and I'd suppose slope as well don't. What does that say about our sensitivity to that one little word?

Well, I had to edit it to get it in at all. The originally it was ****** after I hit the send button, so I presume it's on the list of forbidden words.

[dogjones]

I'm not sure I like the term "woo", pronounced as it spelled. At best it reminds me too much of a girlie drink (consisting of peach schnapps, vodka and cranberry juice - this is a truly awful drink, but vodkan we do about it eh) and at worst it implies some sort of courtship; to wit, to woo is to try and get a bird. (Not an owl - a human woman.) Consider Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Act II Sc I:

Don Pedro:
... Here, Claudio, I have wooed in thy name...
Don Pedro was not doing a tarot reading or preparing a homeopathic remedy for Claudio here. Rather, he was securing a woman (NOT a woo-man) for Claudio to potentize. And this sort of thing does not denote to me a sense of ill-founded credulousness the way the term "woo" should (actually, maybe it does, but I'm not going there.)

Anyway, suffice it to say I do not particularly like the term "woo" pronounced as it is spelled.

However, I do quite like it pronounced in a deep, quavery, ghostlike voice (wwwooohhhoooohhhOOOHHHOOOOOHOOOHOO), accompanied by the appropriate facial expression (eyes wide, expressing combo of reverence, mysticism and fear; mouth in an exaggerated "o" shape to denote a certain amount of vacuousness - this should be vaguelly reminiscent of Scooby Doo) and hand gestures (hands just above the shoulders, palm outwards, fingers twiddling enthusiastically.)

Re the gesticulating, the above is only a guideline. Naturally, select your own random variation - for instance, you can tuck your elbows in toward the armpits and hold hands palm down, just in front of chin (like a dog begging, again reminiscent of Scooby-Doo), and commence the twiddling-of-fingers. Or try your own ideas!

If the person you are addressing is a homeopath, an accompanying dance may be appropriate - perhaps a little pirouette or mini-riverdance. Perhaps the dance could vary from woo to woo, to wit, Owl's Well That Ends Well. Which is a genius play about the placebo effect in birds.

My mind is going.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I use the word 'believers'. Not perfect, but at least not derogatory.
Sounds more condescending to me. Anyhoo, we need a better word. Oh, wait, then that word would be derogatory.

~~ Paul

[Psi Baba]

Let's call them Belgians.

[Complexity]

I like the term 'woo'. I use it both for the people and for the stuff that they believe in. Thus, we have,

"She stepped in woo."
"The woo-enmired are restless today."
"They wallow in woo."
"The scent of woo slowly wafted through the room."

This second use of 'woo' is actually kinder than the first, for it allows for the possibility that the woo could get washed off. Unlikely, but possible.

I'm not at all surprised that Beth doesn't like the term 'woo'.

Boo, hoo.

[tsg]

So how do we refer to people who tend to believe in things for which they have no evidence, without being condescending toward them?

The problem you're going to have is that any label you put on a person is going to be derogatory in some manner or other.

I use "woo" (or any of its synonyms) to describe a particular belief/claim as "unsupported by evidence" or the slightly stronger "no basis in fact". Personally, I don't use "woo" (et al) to describe a person unless I'm trying to be condescending or derogatory (let's face it, sometimes it's just necessary). Otherwise I'll tend to stay away from labelling the person at all.

[petre]

As one who encountered "woo" only in context the first few dozen times, I found no negative conotation.

I stay away from "believer" because it's very tempting for me to spell it "bleever" to drop the religious connotation, and then it does start to sound negative.

The fact is, any woo is going to take offense at any term used to group them with other woos of differing beliefs, because those people are crazy.

[Rockstar]

The problem you're going to have is that any label you put on a person is going to be derogatory in some manner or other.

Feel free to call me an amazingly gorgeous scholar of a Rockstar anytime:)

[Beth]

As one who encountered "woo" only in context the first few dozen times, I found no negative conotation.

I stay away from "believer" because it's very tempting for me to spell it "bleever" to drop the religious connotation, and then it does start to sound negative.

The fact is, any woo is going to take offense at any term used to group them with other woos of differing beliefs, because those people are crazy.

Hard to read things like "She stepped in woo."
and not find it a derrogatory term. But "bleever" is just as bad, as are other terms used around here.

Is it useful to have such a term in common usage? Sure. Nig*er can be a useful word too. It conveys a very precise description of an individual and what you think of think of them in a concise way. But I don't use it. I prefer to avoid the use of terms with such derogatory connotations.

OTOH, it's clear that many here want to broadcast their sentiments about such matters and the people who consider them plausible for whatever reason. Use of the term certainly does that for them, just as the use of the term ni*ger does. That's part of the reason that skeptics, as a group, have the reputation for being arrogant as is being discussed elsewhere in this forum.

[kmortis]

Well, I had to edit it to get it in at all. The originally it was ****** after I hit the send button, so I presume it's on the list of forbidden words.
REALLY? you can't say n**ger, but you can kike? LOL. Ok, that's even funnier than I origionally thought.

[Complexity]

Beth, can you read my mind? It shouldn't be difficult... I'm sending you a message right now.

[Beth]

Beth, can you read my mind? It shouldn't be difficult... I'm sending you a message right now.

Yes. But I'm not claiming any psychic powers. It isn't difficult. Clearly, we have very different value systems. I think you're thinking of your opinion of mine. May I congratulate you on your self-control in not expressing it here. I'll think of it as your christmas present to me. :)

Merry Christmas!

[Beth]

REALLY? you can't say n**ger, but you can kike? LOL. Ok, that's even funnier than I origionally thought.

Apparently. I'd never tried any of them before. That's the only one I had to edit.

Beth

[phaedra]

I must admit that I really do like the terms "woo" and "woo-woo" :D

They are a bit insulting though, so I have adopted the term "non-skeptic" instead, although that could be criticised as being arrogant.

You can't win, can you? :boggled:

I'm inclined to use this too for better or worse.
In any case whatever label is used will sooner or later be deemed derogatory and offensive by said group. Its a no win.:boggled:

.......But I do think it funny when they call us 'skeptics' with that detectable sneer in their tone - as if that term is the equivalent of having the black spot!
Personally I think being termed a skeptic is a badge of honour!!! :D

[Renfield]

I like it. I just like the sound of it. Not sure where it came from, but it fits I think.

I detest the term bright though. That's one term I came across on this forum that I could do without, and I'm glad it hasn't really caught on.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

.......But I do think it funny when they call us 'skeptics' with that detectable sneer in their tone - as if that term is the equivalent of having the black spot!
Especially if they've adopted the term sceptic for a "good skeptic" and skeptic for a bad one.

~~ Paul

[John Jackson]

But I do think it funny when they call us 'skeptics' with that detectable sneer in their tone - as if that term is the equivalent of having the black spot!
What's the black spot?

Don't worry about explaining, I've fallen for it before. :D

Personally I think being termed a skeptic is a badge of honour!!! :D
Same with me. In fact, I can't resist dropping the odd "well, I'm a skeptic..." into conversations. There's a lot of fun to be had just watching people's facial expressions while they try to work out how to respond.

I wait for the, "what's a skeptic?" or "what, you don't believe things?" enquiries.

"Right, let me explain...".

Well after all, they did ask. :D