Condescension

[Bloodtoes]

Hello!

A quick question to y'all. Please advise if this is the incorrect forum for such a topic, and particularly where I might find further reading on it. I wasn't really sure what search terms to use for this topic and as such, the searches I did returned nothing relevant.

When expressing a skeptical point of view, do you find a common response is one of condescension and patronage? Along the lines of "How cute. I used to think that way too, when I was (young|naive)/before I knew better." My argumentation and language skills are not particularly strong in real-time and when confronted with this response I find myself freezing up, unable to respond on my own side. This is not always literally what is said, but the tone and implication are there. Is this perhaps a fault of my reception of their response?

What seems the likely culprit? Am I picking my battles poorly? (i.e. bringing up a skeptical point-of-view on subjects where everyone else seems to "know better"). Is this a response that can be expected perhaps from someone who has been challenged on grounds they weren't expecting to be challenged on? Is there possibly something about my demeanor (acknowledging that you, the reader of this post, know nothing of said demeanor) which may illicit such a response?

I meet with this type of response more often than not, to the point where it's starting to discourage me from attempting to interject in discussions at all.

I appreciate any feedback on this. Thank you.

[Roma]

Bloodtoes do not be discouraged.
They don't mean it the way you think they do.
Rather the opposite I think they want to let you know that they were thinking just like you until they found out something different.

If someone said to me that what I said was "cute" and that I'm young.." I'd tell the senior citizen that I am very cute indeed

My only suggestion to you if you are really interested in sites that you have no expertise in then instead of giving your opinion about something you could ask questions about it.
Skepticism is really about asking questions anyway.

[Bloodtoes]

Thank you for the response. I understand that. I should note that I am not particularly young, which perhaps may be why I can find the condescension so frustrating. I'd like to contribute in the heat of the conversation and what bugs me most is that later on I'll recall what it was that had brought me to the opinion that I held, but which I couldn't summon in the moment. Yet, to try and bring it up again later reminds me of George in Seinfeld when he realised his perfect come-back in the car after his altercation ("The jerk store called.." ).

I think it's best if I give a more clear example. Say that someone sees me crumpling up and throwing out a memo at the office and says I should put it in the recycle bin, I respond that paper recycling is not particularly effective and that paper which cannot be reused should be discarded via the trash. In this case, I've recalled the opinion that I was convinced of at an earlier date but I don't have at my fingertips the exact reasons. I'll recall that it was something to do with biodegradation, trees being a renewable resource, and economics. That's not convincing at all and maybe does come across as naive, or not well thought-out. This is the sort of scenario where I most commonly face a condescending or patronizing attitude. I'm seen as naive for not wanting to Save The Planet by recycling paper or some such.

But, you make a good point. Perhaps I am feeling the sting at being challenged myself and not having at the ready -why- I feel this way on this subject. Maybe I am too eager to lean toward conclusions which contradict so-called common knowledge and am therefore not solidifying my own position with good arguments, thus setting myself up for such altercations which end in failure on my part.

This is perhaps a good thing. A sign that it's time for a skeptical research project.

[Alan]

It is unlikely that we will succeed in convincing people “then and there” that their positions are wrong. It can be embarrassing to admit to making an error (especially about something as personally meaningful as some of woo-woo beliefs can be) or to acknowledge losing an argument. What we are more likely to do is place an idea in their mind, which I have heard described as a "seed". This seed can develop over time when it has been nourished with facts and subject to the sunlight of reason.

I have an experience of this as a member of the incorrect party. Several years ago, I became an Apollo landing denier after watching that Fox polemic. A year or two after watching it, I found out about another television programme on the same topic. Excited by this news, I eagerly awaited its broadcast.

About halfway through this documentary, I made a dreadful realisation: this show is trying to claim that the moon landings actually happened! I was disappointed because I was expecting more evidence for this grand, exciting conspiracy. Its facts were frustrating. I didn’t believe them.

It was not until up to a year later that I stopped believing that it was a hoax. I did not learn anything new about the moon landings in the interim. The reasons for that happening at that point are mysterious to me but I know one thing: that show planted the seed. When thinking about why that conspiracy is wrong, I recall the arguments from that second programme.

I hope that this provides encouragement. What seems to be a fruitless effort can actually bring success!

[jakesteele]

One of the things I have noticed about critical thinking/skeptic/debunkers websites is that they seem to have two hats that they wear. When discussing non-emotionally charged conventional science topics, they are very logical, objective, intelligent and civil. However, when dealing with anything they have labeled ‘woo’, they put their debunker hat on and have a tendency to become irrational and un-objective, sometimes to the point of hysteria.

In other words, they go from a skeptic to a debunker in the blink of an eye:

Skeptic - one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

Debunker – one who starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe. Someone who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking.

Another interesting thing I have noticed about debunking sites in general is that none of them have a forum on psychology. A psych forum would seem like a natural on this type of site in that when dealing with woo you are dealing with something that is more emotionally based than logic or the process of mentation. There is a tendency to pull down Wiki lists of Cognitive Biases and see them quite clearly in others, but to the same degree they seem to be blind to the same thing in themselves. There seems to be very little introspection and self examination. I sometimes get the impression that a debunker is a woo’s evil twin.

Some of the more common traits I see on these sites pertaining to a debunker’s stance on woo are these, to name a few.

Illusory Superiority – perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity. As in the case of most fundamentalist mindsets, this is characterized by smugness, condescendtion and at times outright arrogant grandiosity. This tendency is continually reinforced by the dynamic of Group Think, which in turn creates the:
‘I’m special and different effect’ – a feeling of being special or different by believing they see reality as it really is. Their goal is to convert the teeming ignorant, superstitious masses.

Omnicient Absolute – Their Perspective and opinions are All knowing and All Seeing and beyond reproach. Anybody that’s “right thinking” will see that as self-evident. Any differing opinion is therefore totally wrong (see Black and White/All-or-Nothing thinking).

This is further magnified by the:
Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

Hero of the World - They are part of special, elite group who are the only ones that can save the ignorant and the superstitious from their misguided ways. They’re on a mission from Darwin

Messianic Complex
that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the rising tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But in a skeptic’s mind, only skeptics can really know for sure.

Hope that helps.

[PB2007]

Doesn't a lot of that also apply to Truther sites? Obviously with the exception of the Skeptic / Debunker bit where you just replace that with

Truther - one who has decided on his conclusion and will mis-represent, mangle and cram as many square shaped "facts" into as many round shaped holes as he can.

As for the second part remember Truthers often allude to the fact they see something we sheeple don't or they have a greater understanding of the world than everyone else - hidden agenda, secret groups etc

The difference is that Skeptics / Debunkers can, for the most part, back up their claims with facts and figures. Truthers often can't / don't / won't and will accept hearsay as evidence without question.

The same situation applies to all Woo. Both sides are arguing from high points on opposite sides of the valley. The believers know their ability exists because they see it every day and they don't understand why the Skeptics can't see it. The Skeptics want more proof than a handful of vague claims and laugh when Woo-ers say things like the presence of Skeptics drain their power. You can replace Woo and Trutherism with Politics, Economics and Religion. The stronger your conviction the closer you get to condescension. If you try to see the other side it helps.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

One of the things I have noticed about critical thinking/skeptic/debunkers websites is that they seem to have two hats that they wear...

I'm not sure which website you're reading, but the ones I read (Science Based Medicine, Neurologica, Bad Astrology, et al) do a pretty good job of backing up their assertions with independently verifiable information--especially when it comes to woo woo.

Anyway, to the OP--it's a work in progress with me. When you have folks telling you magic water is more effective than vaccines in combating childhood illness, it's very difficult not to be a condescending prick, especially since I'm a father of two toddlers that are directly affected by their magical thinking. I feel that humor is often the best road to take in these situations, and after the heated conversation I'll often send them links of much funnier people that do a good job of putting it in perspective.

I don't have the solution, really, I'm still a work in progress

[ExMinister]

I agree being armed with the facts will help. This works both ways, I've noticed. Whether you're arguing as a skeptic or a woo, a mis-statement of fact or an apparent lack of thorough knowledge on a subject will compromise your position so that the other guy will tend to dismiss what you're saying as "naive," etc.

I think I sometimes read just enough on something to be convinced myself, but not enough that I can repeat it back well to convince someone else! I'm working on that, too.

Originally Posted by PB2007

Doesn't alot of that also apply to Truther sites? Obviously with the exception of the Skeptic / Debunker bit where you just replace that with

Truther - one who has decided on his conclusion and will mis-represent, mangle and cram as many square shaped "facts" into as many round shaped holes as he can.

As for the second part remember Truthers often allude to the fact they see something we sheeple don't or they have a greater understanding of the world than everyone else - hidden agenda, secret groups etc

The difference is that Skeptics / Debunkers can, for the most part, back up their claims with facts and figures. Truthers often can't / don't / won't and will accept hearsay as evidence without question.

That to me is the big difference, too.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Bloodtoes

Thank you for the response. I understand that. I should note that I am not particularly young, which perhaps may be why I can find the condescension so frustrating. I'd like to contribute in the heat of the conversation and what bugs me most is that later on I'll recall what it was that had brought me to the opinion that I held, but which I couldn't summon in the moment. Yet, to try and bring it up again later reminds me of George in Seinfeld when he realised his perfect come-back in the car after his altercation ("The jerk store called.." ).

I think it's best if I give a more clear example. Say that someone sees me crumpling up and throwing out a memo at the office and says I should put it in the recycle bin, I respond that paper recycling is not particularly effective and that paper which cannot be reused should be discarded via the trash. In this case, I've recalled the opinion that I was convinced of at an earlier date but I don't have at my fingertips the exact reasons. I'll recall that it was something to do with biodegradation, trees being a renewable resource, and economics. That's not convincing at all and maybe does come across as naive, or not well thought-out. This is the sort of scenario where I most commonly face a condescending or patronizing attitude. I'm seen as naive for not wanting to Save The Planet by recycling paper or some such.

But, you make a good point. Perhaps I am feeling the sting at being challenged myself and not having at the ready -why- I feel this way on this subject. Maybe I am too eager to lean toward conclusions which contradict so-called common knowledge and am therefore not solidifying my own position with good arguments, thus setting myself up for such altercations which end in failure on my part.

This is perhaps a good thing. A sign that it's time for a skeptical research project.

This, if you haven't read it yet, might be an interesting and learning read for you
Swift

[MRC_Hans]

To the OP:

I agree that condescension is not unusual. However, it is certainly not restricted to skeptics; I have met none as condescending as devout theists, who will almost invariably imply that non-believers are either stupid or in denial.

Another reason someone here may get the feeling that skeptics are condescending is that when you have been using to forum for some time (like I have), there is very rarely an argument that you have not heard before, and seen countered before. So it is really difficult not to adopt a 'hey nice try, but...' attitude.

Now for this:

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Skeptic - one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

This is partly a correct description of a true skeptic [tm], however, I doubt if such a creature exists in the real world. Nobody expects you to be 'as yet undecided' to be a good skeptic. You may work on some assumption about the truth, however, you must be willing to listen to, and possibly be swayed by, contrary evidence.

Quote:

Debunker – one who starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe. Someone who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking.

This is easier: Debunkers don't exist, or are at least very rare. "Debunker" is what a believer calls a skeptic the arguments of whom he cannot counter.

Quote:

Another interesting thing I have noticed about debunking sites in general is that none of them have a forum on psychology. A psych forum would seem like a natural on this type of site in that when dealing with woo you are dealing with something that is more emotionally based than logic or the process of mentation.

There is a forum for psychology here. It is called Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology . Psychology is one of our least exact sciences, but a science none the less.

Quote:

Illusory Superiority – perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity.

You just described the average hard believer .

Quote:

Omnicient Absolute – Their Perspective and opinions are All knowing and All Seeing and beyond reproach. Anybody that’s “right thinking” will see that as self-evident. Any differing opinion is therefore totally wrong (see Black and White/All-or-Nothing thinking).

Yes, I have met the type. They are mostly theists, but some of the homeopaths are in this group, too.

Quote:

This is further magnified by the:
Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

Hero of the World - They are part of special, elite group who are the only ones that can save the ignorant and the superstitious from their misguided ways. They’re on a mission from ....

Messianic Complex
that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the rising tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of ....

Methinks you are describing more theists. Projecting a little bit, perhaps?


Hans

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Roma

If someone said to me that what I said was "cute" and that I'm young.." I'd tell the senior citizen that I am very cute indeed

Evidence ? Photo & youtube video accepted .

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

When you have folks telling you magic water is more effective than vaccines in combating childhood illness, it's very difficult not to be a condescending prick

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I agree that condescension is not unusual. However, it is certainly not restricted to skeptics;

The OP is asking for advice about how to deal with condescension in response to scepticism.

[Stray Cat]

My advice would be to take their opinion on board and say you'll give it some serious thought and do some research then get back to them.

When you get the chance, log on here. It's a wonderful resource for valuable information regarding every woo topic, science and religion topic. And then get back to them like you promised and blow their mind with some real verifiable refutation source material... and probably a few portions of sarcasm and condescension you can throw back at them

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think when you're dealing with this sort of attitude ("Your position is just like one that I had before I wised up"), it's clear you don't have enough in common with the person even to carry on a conversation.

I once had a similar encounter. When a person learned that I was an atheist, her first comment was something like, "Yes I meet atheists all the time when they come to my church and then find Jesus." My initial instinct was to reply "Bull" and cite the percentage of members of my atheist group that were raised in one or another religious tradition before they wised up (well over 90%), but I didn't.

To borrow from the Bible (Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5), this is the point to shake the dust off your feet and leave that person.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Skeptic - one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

According to your definition, a skeptic who approached a subject with an open mind, learned all that he can, enough to form a tentative conclusion, would suddenly no longer be a skeptic. The only people who would remain "skeptics" in your system would be those who remain ignorant.

A skeptic is still a skeptic even after he investigates, as long as he retains an open mind to new evidence and knows how to evaluate it properly.

[Whiplash]

To the OP:

This mindset goes both ways. It goes all ways.

It's not about believing one side more than another that causes it.

It's simply a very poor form of debating that is employed anywhere and everywhere.

People have an option when they disagree with you. They can choose to engage you directly, point by point, and have a substantive discussion. This can be hard, and very frustrating, if you are dealing with someone who is hard headed and refuses to budge.

So more often, people resort to the "20 laughing dogs" approach.

See, they want to make sure you realize that you are wrong.. but they can't be bothered to take the time to show why. But they also can't just walk away and leave it alone. They must put you in your place.

So, they'll give you the equivalent of a pat on the head.. "that's cute, now go play on the playground with your friends" kind of nonsense. Or just point and laugh.

It's lazy and it's intellectually dishonest. It serves only to feed their own ego. It's pointless in achieving anything. Stigma and embarrassment may change the occasional mind, but only a few.. and is that how you really want to convert them anyhow? Do you want them on your side simply because they felt you had the most insulting or pithy responses to people who disagree? Do you want them on your side simply because they are ashamed to be ridiculed by you, but haven't actually fully understood why they were wrong to begin with?

It happens all the time, everywhere. From people on every side of every isle and every issue. Here, there, everywhere.

It's lazy. And it's pointless. But I'll also grant it can happen, somewhat innocently, out of frustration with someone who is belligerent.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

One of the things I have noticed about critical thinking/skeptic/debunkers websites is that they seem to have two hats that they wear.

No you haven't.

Quote:

When discussing non-emotionally charged conventional science topics, they are very logical, objective, intelligent and civil. However, when dealing with anything they have labeled ‘woo’, they put their debunker hat on and have a tendency to become irrational and un-objective, sometimes to the point of hysteria.

Nope.

The difference is whether it's your ox being gored, or someone else's.

Quote:

Skeptic - one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

As I've pointed out to you before, judgement should only be suspended until the facts are in. Once the facts are in, to continue to suspend judgement is not skepticism, it's dishonesty.

Quote:

Debunker – one who starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe. Someone who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking.

Not even remotely true. You're just trying to blame your personal biases on others.

Quote:

Another interesting thing I have noticed about debunking sites in general is that none of them have a forum on psychology.

Science.

Quote:

A psych forum would seem like a natural on this type of site in that when dealing with woo you are dealing with something that is more emotionally based than logic or the process of mentation.

Not to us it isn't. If you bring your emotional biases in with your unsupported beliefs, then that is rather your problem, I should think.

Quote:

There is a tendency to pull down Wiki lists of Cognitive Biases and see them quite clearly in others, but to the same degree they seem to be blind to the same thing in themselves.

Now, it is easier to spot failings in others than in yourself, but if you actually read the threads here you will note the as skeptics we don't all agree, and we do point out when we think others have erred. And we also see admissions of error.

Quote:

There seems to be very little introspection and self examination.

Nope, simply not true.

Quote:

I sometimes get the impression that a debunker is a woo’s evil twin.

No, that's just you.

Quote:

Some of the more common traits I see on these sites pertaining to a debunker’s stance on woo are these, to name a few.

Illusory Superiority – perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity.

Categorically false. One of the most important things to understand as a skeptic is your own cognitive bias, and that being aware of it doesn't automatically make you immune to it.

This is, again, just your own bias speaking.

Quote:

As in the case of most fundamentalist mindsets, this is characterized by smugness, condescendtion and at times outright arrogant grandiosity. This tendency is continually reinforced by the dynamic of Group Think, which in turn creates the:
‘I’m special and different effect’ – a feeling of being special or different by believing they see reality as it really is. Their goal is to convert the teeming ignorant, superstitious masses.

This is nothing more than a strawman and an ad hominem attack.

Quote:

Omnicient Absolute – Their Perspective and opinions are All knowing and All Seeing and beyond reproach. Anybody that’s “right thinking” will see that as self-evident. Any differing opinion is therefore totally wrong (see Black and White/All-or-Nothing thinking).

Strawman, ad hominem.

Quote:

This is further magnified by the:
Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

Strawman, ad hominem.

Quote:

Hero of the World - They are part of special, elite group who are the only ones that can save the ignorant and the superstitious from their misguided ways. They’re on a mission from Darwin

Strawman, ad hominem.

Quote:

Messianic Complex
that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the rising tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science.

Strawman, ad hominem.

Quote:

Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists.

Perfectly true. Scientists are not, as a rule, trained to investigate matters where the subject of study is actively trying to deceive them. Their failing in this regard vis-a-vis paranormal research has been demonstrated repeatedly. And the field of paranormal research is defined by sloppy experimental technique.

Quote:

Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade.

Likewise demonstrably true, so far as it goes. It doesn't have to be magicians specifically, but magicians are a good source because they make their living by fooling people.

Quote:

“Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But in a skeptic’s mind, only skeptics can really know for sure.

Strawman, ad hominem.

Quote:

Hope that helps.

Did it help you?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by CurtC

According to your definition, a skeptic who approached a subject with an open mind, learned all that he can, enough to form a tentative conclusion, would suddenly no longer be a skeptic. The only people who would remain "skeptics" in your system would be those who remain ignorant.

Worse than that, he requires his skeptics to ignore established facts in the face of nonsense.

Some claims just don't deserve the benefit of doubt, and that list, by this point, includes pretty much everything that goes on in this section of the forum.

[a3sigma]

Never argue -- ask questions. Keep the burden of proof where it belongs. The Socratic Method consists of asking questions that force your interlocutor to confront the weakness in their own position. If you take no position, no one can condescend to it (or argue with it).

Consider your example: When chided for not recycling paper, don't counter with an assertion that's it's ineffective. Ask questions -- "Why do you think we should recycle paper?... What's the evidence; do you have any data to support that?... Are you aware of these facts?... Do you dispute them?... On what basis?... What's your evidence?... Walk me through your reasoning on that..."

David Clark in Southern Maryland USA

[FSM]

Originally Posted by a3sigma

Never argue -- ask questions. Keep the burden of proof where it belongs. The Socratic Method consists of asking questions that force your interlocutor to confront the weakness in their own position. If you take no position, no one can condescend to it (or argue with it).

Consider your example: When chided for not recycling paper, don't counter with an assertion that's it's ineffective. Ask questions -- "Why do you think we should recycle paper?... What's the evidence; do you have any data to support that?... Are you aware of these facts?... Do you dispute them?... On what basis?... What's your evidence?... Walk me through your reasoning on that..."

David Clark in Southern Maryland USA

HEY! I tend to do it this way until it aggravates the hell out of people and they try to stab me in the face. But this is usually what I try to do...

Welcome to the forum!

[Bloodtoes]

Thank you for the responses everyone, they have been very helpful for me in identifying where I went wrong and what I can do to have more productive conversations in the future. a3sigma I think put it most succinctly, and that is what I will try to do from now on.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by FSM

HEY! I tend to do it this way until it aggravates the hell out of people and they try to stab me in the face. But this is usually what I try to do...

That's why web forums are such a blessing. You hardly ever get stabbed in the face.

Though half our resident woos have me on ignore for doing this to them.

[a3sigma]

Originally Posted by FSM

HEY! I tend to do it this way until it aggravates the hell out of people and they try to stab me in the face. But this is usually what I try to do...

Welcome to the forum!

More questions: "Why are you angry? I'm trying to understand how you arrived at your point of view. Don't you want to clarify this?"

If it gets too intense, gaze blankly into the middle distance and say: "I'm sorry, I have to leave now. The Voices are telling me to go home and clean the guns."

DC