Skepticism and the Interpersonal

Skepticism, Self Awareness, and the Interpersonal:
Discordant Fissures and Opportunity

November 29, 2009










Reluctantly Restoring the Murky Lens of Self Awareness
As a Youth Counselor working with street entrenched youth, as a Child Care Worker and Supervisor dealing with an overcrowded, understaffed, and under funded childcare facility (sorry, I can’t resist a good political punch), and now working in the area of community development (whatever that means), I have taken countless forays into self awareness and have attempted to follow various personal growth plans, spiritual paths, and resiliency strategies. At times I was not only purveyor of these strategies but a fervent advocate, at times unconsciously engaging in suasive communications to impede others’ free will through zealous attempts at conversion. The subsequent lessens of humility this zealous path bestowed provided the foundation for a personal awakening and a shift in focus away from the ongoing discernment of the meeting point between my sublimely dysfunctional upbringing and the resultant personality quirks and communication habits; ‘twas a happy shifting away from the pursuit of self actualization and the clutter of conscientious “I statements” and “clearly stated personal boundaries”
Awkwardly, because of the assignment to which this paper is directed I am facing a fresh focus on my idiosyncrasies. I am somewhat aggrieved with this assignment; feeling subjected to an external shove under the guise of demonstrating my ability and capacity to be self aware, and to the ultimate aggravation of being graded and ranked based on my cognizance of the importance of such an undertaking.
Please excuse me, perhaps I can soften that previous statement. If it is not clear, I am a skeptic. On my last birthday I was given a lemon cake; “to match my quiet acerbic nature”, as my friends said. I have a tendency to believe, as Sturgeon’s Law does, that 90% of everything is crud (Sturgeon, 1956). While putting aside the stronger and more cynical elements of my skeptical nature but while also maintaining enough of that nature to avoid creating a banal and vapid piece of prose in a simplistic attempt to meet the obligation this assignment has superimposed upon me, I shall herein pursue the following triadic pathway:
1.) Reluctantly reawaken the murky lens of self awareness (see above).
2.) Develop an authentic skeptical perspective
3.) Articulate the fountainhead of a self aware, skeptic friendly interpersonal communication strategy.
Articulating an Authentic Skeptical Perspective
Although often labeled as “negative", I prefer to liken the role of a skeptic in a manner similar to Robert Ingersoll who responded to such an accusation by responding, "The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not." (Brainy Quote, 2009). For example, in a previous essay (Ellis, 2002) I tested a skeptical theory that supposed every one suffers to some degree from post traumatic stress disorder due to a barrage of commercially driven economically focused mass forms of coercion. With that postulation in mind, I immediately and unequivocally state that a prod to self awareness under the guise of improving interpersonal communications is a form of social coercion.
Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague descriptions as valid without realizing the same description could be applied to just about anyone or any situation. The Forer or Barnum Effect (the expression, "the Barnum effect," originates from circus man P.T. Barnum's reputation as a master psychological manipulator.) is also known as the subjective validation effect or the personal validation effect (Frank, 2003)
Forer presented the following personality assessment:
“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.”
Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and instead gave each student the aforementioned evaluation. He asked the students to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the meaning the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 (Frank, 2003). Forer persuaded people he could successfully understand their character with amazing accuracy. His personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column.
The Forer effect seems, at least partially, to shed light on the popularity and trust of quick and easy Oprah Winfrey like solutions. Forer simply believed it was evidence of human gullibility. “People tend to accept claims about themselves in proportion to their desire that the claims be true rather than in proportion to the practical accuracy”. Why does the Forer Effect operate? Various explanations have been offered, from human gullibility to ignorance to plain wishful thinking.
The Forer Effect, or subjective validation, is also sometimes used to describe how people can become overconfident about their prejudices and pet ideas. Essentially, we talk ourselves into believing that we are right even when the evidence at hand would convince us we are wrong - or at least that the case for our idea(s) aren’t very sound. Indeed, we "know" better, but our desires to be well, to be happy or to be successful are so powerful they dominate our better sense. This would serve to satisfactory explain my previously mentioned compulsion to adapt zealous communications.
David Marks and Richard Kamman (1979) build on the subjective validation construct by arguing that once a belief or expectation is found, especially one that resolves uncomfortable uncertainty, it biases the observer to notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary. This self-perpetuating mechanism consolidates the original error and builds up an overconfidence in which the arguments of opponents are seen as too fragmentary to undo the adopted belief.(p.56)

Concession: A Skeptic Needs a Communication Strategy
Thomas Skovholt suggests, “The constant demands of a profession can have a profound effect on ones’ well being” (Skohvolt, 2000). I suspect this statement could be applied to non professional aspects as well. The demands of skepticism can potentially be an emotional and intellectual plague for any one engaging in its precepts. The problem is that there is too little time to continually test everything told. There are times when personal issues or patterns prevent one from achieving a desired answer. A major difficulty for a skeptic in communicating is the very subjective infinitely difficult ongoing intra personal processes of detection, assessment, and substantiation.
The work of Phillipe Thiriart offers communication guidance when forming decisions at times when personal issues and patterns prevent desired communication progress. He states, “Information is your most important ally, ask questions. And don’t feel apologetic or defensive about asking questions. How else can you assess your options and arrive at an informed decision? You need to know what you’re looking for. That’s your starting point (Thiriart, 2001).
Thiriart suggests some specific questions to ask oneself in creating healthy interpersonal communications, and which support healthy skepticism.
1. What do you want? The more clearly you define what you want, the more likely you are to find a strategy supports your needs.
2. Why are you considering this strategy? Is someone pushing you? Choose for you, be sure you are helping yourself – not someone else.
3. Upon what principles is the strategy based? Does it contain a spiritual component either religious or secular? No matter what your objectives, however, you should be able to clearly articulate the psychological, emotional and spiritual principles underlying the approach. Are these principles accepting and inclusive?
Be cognizant of “Red Flags”. Interpersonal communication strategies in the context of the class to which this missive is directed, have been linked to personal growth and awareness. Thiriart offers a key red flags to consider and suggests in the event of encountering this, step back, resist pressure (internal or external) to reach agreement or make a decision; just simply ask more questions.


Bla bla bla bla bla


References:
Dickson, D. , Kelly, I.. 1985. The 'Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature," Psychological Reports, 57, 367-382.
Ellis, J., 2002. From Jonestown to Wal-Mart: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder En Masse. University of Regina, Social Work 411 Essay submission.
Frank, L.. 2003. Freedom: Quotes and Passages from the World’s Greatest Free Thinkers. Random House, 2003. p. 454 Forer, B.R.. (1949) "The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A classroom Demonstration of Gullibility," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 44, 118-121. Ingersoll, R. . Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ robert_green_ingersoll.html
Sturgeon, T., 1953. Sturgeon’s Law, World Science Fiction Convention, Philadelphia. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law
Kamman, R. , Marks, D. 1979, The Psychology of the Phychic. Prometheus Books. Amherst, N.Y.
Thiriart, P. 1991. Acceptance of Personality Test Results. Skeptical Inquirer, 15,116-165.
Skovholt, T. 2000. The Resilient Practitioner. Allyn and Bacon. Boston MA