Fantasy Prone Personalities v. Skeptics (page 2)

Xandria

Definately a fantasy proned person I am a creative type.

X.

LittleToe

REM:
If you've quite finished attacking the author's credentials, of which there is little to report as "shady" - what did you make of the articles?

Robyn:
I have a healthy dose of skepticism, but I had an active imagination, as a kid.
Apparently I even had an imaginary friend, at age four, called Duncan. Strange, since my parents didn't know where I could have heard the name from...

Robdar

I have a healthy dose of skepticism, but I had an active imagination, as a kid.

LT, I think that fantasy prone youngsters have to learn skepticism because they get beaten up if they don't. Many times I was told to stop day dreaming. I know that the people who told me that thought that they were telling me for my own good but all I learned from it was suspicion and skepticism. I do agree with them, though, that a person should be grounded.

LittleToe

Robyn:Aye, maybe that's part of it.
You didn't meet Duncan, on his travels, did ya?

Sirona

At the risk to having the skeptics use this against me (I'm well known around here for saying I believe in God and paranormal, etc.) I can say that my childhood was pretty much full of fantasy. I truly believed that I talked to fairies under the oak tree at the bottom of our garden. I don't think that imaginative necessarily means "dizzy" or unfocused though. I have an excellent capacity to concentrate for long periods of time, oftentimes blocking out other things. Sounds silly this, but a popular joke in the family was to say stupid stuff to me whilst I was watching my fav TV show - they knew I wouldn't hear them....not that I wasn't listening, I just would never hear them. Nowadays I tune out like this at work and exclude all and everyone around me whilst focused on something - and I've noticed that there are others who sometimes do this too.

Robyn - glad you enjoy my fantasies. I think LittleToe does too.

Sirona

LittleToe

Sorry - was someone talking to me?
I was zoned out, there, concentrating on my work...

Aztec

I identify with the fantasy prone idea a bit more. I have a great tendency to hyper focus. I tend to get lost in thought very easily. Apparantly that is also a tendency for people who suffer from ADD. So I've read anyway.

~Aztec

BTW Curmudeonality is not a word. Curmudgeonly is. It is defined as: An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions. I know of people like that but I do not see how it is indicative of skepticism. Skeptics are just people who look at things critically. Someone who is critical is characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment. Not a bad way to be.

asleif_dufansdottir

I guess I don't see the correlation between a rich fantasy life that you are aware is fantasy...i.e.-that's just entertainment...and not being skeptical. I think the awareness that it's fantasy is the key.

I mean, all fiction is fantasy...are they suggesting that people who enjoy fiction (books, tv, movies) can't be skeptical about real-life facts?

I consider myself a skeptic, but I do enjoy fantasy, and have all my life. However, my husband is the type of skeptical person who does not enjoy fantasy or fiction. He watches very little tv that is not the Discovery channel type (CSI and Law and Order being the only fictional shows he watches...unless you count cartoons, which he loves). He does not read any fiction at all for fun (had I thought a little more about that before we married I would have considered us incompatible!), and thinks movies like Lord of the Rings are stupid.

Abaddon

Littletoe;

Actually, REM is very right about the credentials of the researcher collating the studies.

David Quinne is a Certified Public Psychic. He is a graduate of Maharishi International University where he studied quantum metaphysics...

If you could tell me what examinations a certfied (LOVE the use of that word in this context) public psychic takes, and who sets these exams, and what agencies this qualification is accepted by, I'll wipe the sarcastic grin off my face...

... and what in the name of ?uck is 'quantum metaphysics'??? I have a feeling that levitation... well, "yogic jumping" is lurking around a corner very nearby...

Secondly, methodolgy;

Selection in the first study;

Using a brief questionnaire, we identified 23 fantasizers from a pool of more than 1,400 college students. Twenty-one medium and 18 low-fantasy-prone students were identified as comparison groups.

Splitting an effectively randomised group into study/control groups based upon a questionaire and seeing what differences there are between groups. Nice methodolgy. They did set out to study fantasy-prone personalities, but their study provides a contrast and thus is far more illuminating than a study which lacks a real control.

Selection in the second study;

In 1989 Barbara & Walters identified a group of skeptical people who differed significantly from the population at large. Their subjects, culled from various Internet discussion groups, were self identified ``skeptics.'' These skeptics showed an interest in science and technology, showed distain for fringe claims, and were not shy about sharing their views. Within this group Barbara & Walters identified a subgroup of 28 people who showed a form of intense skepticism including rejection of traditional social structures, references to a common set of arguments, and an inability to bring a line of argument to an end.

This is web surfing looking for a group displaying (in their opinion, not by selection by questionnaire from a randomised group) certain characteristics. Having found such a group to study they then study the characteristics that they originally used to select the group.

It's not a study of the differences between various groups, its the study of a selected group, and only as illuminating as a focused study of murderers would be when compared to a study of murderers as compared to the general population. Lousy methodology.

Anyway, having found a group displaying the characteristics they wanted to find and studying those same characteristics, they label someone who displays that set of characteristics they initially defined as an IDP. They really needn't have bothered going about the study, they had already reached a conclusion and selected a methodology that would automatically validate their conclusion.

The other experiments refered to in the second study have similar faults in methodolgy. If anything they prove that people at the extreme end of a spectrum of behaviour may exhibit signs of being unbalanced. So unbalanced people show extreme behaviour. We needed an experiment to find that out?

The last one is the funniest, where they concluded that the authors of extremely skeptical books are extremely skeptical. Woo! Bit like Popes being Catholic...

The entire second study says nothing about a methodological, materialist, say a 'scientific' approach that asks proof and suspends judgement in its absence, as opposed to a more teleological, 'spiritual' approach that envokes belief and subjectivity.

Pity really... I'm sure they believe their studies 'prove' something, but then, that's then entire point, isn't it?

LittleToe

Abaddon:

... and what in the name of ?uck is 'quantum metaphysics'???

You mean you don't know? Then how can you criticise his qualification, based on your ignorance?

As for attacking the data and interpretation, as you have gone on to do, I can respect that

Fantasy Prone Personalities v. Skeptics

Share this