Can we have a proper 'woo' topic?

[IndigoBarbie]

Dear MNHQ, I fully believe in freedom of speech and experiences, and as such I go out of my way to assist those who are asking more angelic/psychic etc questions, since this is my real life in a nutshell. Getting sooooo fed up of threads becoming all about others who don't believe and blatantly attacking those of us on thread who want to actively discuss and share and I think a lovely new topic of 'woo' or something you feel is an appropriate title could be provided for us to have proper sharings and discussions.

Thanks, Dione.

I have extensive experience of people experiencing actual delusions. Just the other day I was talking to the lady who can shrink to less than the size of a daisy, which she does on summer evenings so as to talk to the little people that live in her garden In my own late teens - early twenties I had some psychotic episodes, presenting as supernatural/psychic phenomena, and was also pretty keen on LSD until I started getting the spontaneous episodes. I've known a lot of people with probable personality disorders, quite a few with diagnosed schizophrenia and some with extreme bi-polar - plus all the uncommonly-wired people you tend to meet in artistic circles. I would never claim my life has been a sane one!! (is anybody's?)

I get unreasonably upset when people, who are often targeted precisely for their blurry boundaries between imagination and tangible reality, are deluded by others who wish them harm. I also loathe stigmatisation of mental illness; I'd like everyone to realise they all have micro-psychotic episodes all the time, as the brain slips in & out of sleep mode. The human mind is such an incredible thing: we do it a disservice, imo, by attributing its lesser-known talents to outside influences.

Garlic. Thanks for sharing your experiences. You and others on the MH boards help me to increase my understanding of MH issues which has been brilliant wrt my clinical practice and dealing with ExH (bipolar with psychotic episodes).

I too hate the stigmatization of MH issues. They should not be used to insult or demean and I get angry when they are. If I hurt you or caused you offense in any of my posts I apologise. It is not my intention. I am aware that my writing style can be construed as cold and or combatative. Again this is not my intention. Sometimes I try to pretty up my posts a bit, but when I read them back they sound false. I am much better at face to face. I am no Jane Austin.

Garlic Nobody forced or persuaded my friend to use homeopathy for breast cancer. You really couldn't have anything more opposite to that: she was a nurse who had retrained as a homeopath, she researched extensively and made her own decision. Lots of us told her, when that decision was made, that we thought it was the wrong one but it was her decision and nobody elses which she told us all very clearly.

Rather like it was pointed out earlier that MN would be empty if bollocks-posting was not allowed, Boots would be empty if they were only allowed to sell products that are evidence based and clinically proven

I think the point with respect to use of the word delusional is that it epitomises what people perceive as the nastiness targeted at them (you don't agree with me so I am going to refer to you with a term linked with mental illness) It is one thing to say you think somebody is wrong and why or to use the word accurately but quite another to use it in a pejorative way.

Oh, thank you Dione! :)
I agree, Scouse, it's ... well, silly to use it as an insult.

IndigoBarbie you started this one after you admitted charging people for woo and were asked about the ethics yes?

So now you want to people who might disagree with you kept away?

right....

Great post Garlic. We should put the woo topic in science and nature so we can try and work out how these things really happen. Neuroscience has come a long way recently, certainly in understanding brain development.

I think that if you are saying everything has to have evidence no matter what it's about otherwise it's a lie or potentially damaging is shutting down debate and shows a lack of ability to apply common sense.

Isn't that the difference between scepticism which is genuine enquiry and the ability to change one's stance and opinion if presented with credible new information and pseudoscepticism which is dogmatic denial of anything outside a narrow paradigm no matter what new information is offered?

From here, truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/
"A true sceptic objectively enquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides of the debate, including their own beliefs. Real sceptics are not preoccupied with taking sides, but objectively enquire to seek the truth, no matter where it leads. An admirable pursuit indeed.

Pseudosceptics & Pseudoscepticism
Pseudosceptics on the other hand, have a pre-defined agenda to preserve dogma and to dismiss out of hand any ideas not conforming to the establishment point of view. Essentially this makes them establishment defenders.
Pseudoscepticism or pseudo-scepticism is defined as thinking that claims to be sceptical, but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real scepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoscepticism may also be defined as making pseudo-scientific arguments in pursuit of a sceptical agenda.
Pseudoscepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence."

There's quite a bit online about pseudoscepticism, perhaps it explains some of the inflexible attitudes displayed here, perhaps not.

perhaps not.

" The human mind is such an incredible thing: we do it a disservice, imo, by attributing its lesser-known talents to outside influences."

I totally agree garlic. I am a scientist, and atheist and a witch.

So is it going to happen? I know MNHQ have commented, but I can't find the post.

It would be a shame if a few dogmatic naysayers shut down the whole idea.

Don't worry, It won't happen. MNHQ said no, but anyway we know from experience they won't do that.

Someone once demanded that people should only be allowed to post in Feminism if they agreed with them. They were told where they could stick that idea too :)

People who just want to write things without anyone disagreeing with them can buy a diary.

..buy a diary.

I haven't read the whole thread but I just want to add my voice to those who think it would be idiotic to set up a woo topic and put neuroscience in the title.

I am still backing "tales of the unexplained".

I would definitely NEVER bother to argue with someone posting under that titles and might even read some just for fun!

I like ghost stories...as long as everyone realises they are stories...

MNHQ should get on the case with a diary with AIBU on the front then a big YANBU at the bottom of every page...

Actually I think Ice is right. Religion and Philosophy would imply discussions based on theological doctrines or academic philosophical discussions. Psychic experiences don't really fit under that umbrella IMHO.

It only reflects real life you know.

Try an experiment. Stand outside the bank and tell anyone who passes that the bank is actually a large fish.

People will say "no it isn't. It's a bank".

Some may turn to a friend and say "this wierdo thinks the bank is a large fish. She must be on drugs or something"

It just won't occur to them to respect your belief and say "it's a nice fish. Shall we call it Roger".

While I don't think there should be a law against calling a bank a large fish you can't make a law telling people to take it seriously either. If you want to believe in things that make no sense and tell people about it then expect derision.

""it's a nice fish. Shall we call it Roger"

Backonlybriefly - That analogy is not remotely relevant IMO.

Why do you think it is irrelevant, lottie?

It looks very relevant from where I'm sitting.

I don't think it makes sense in the least. You may think differently.

You said irrelevant, not "doesn't make sense".

So, why do you think it is irrelevant?

And what is it that doesn't make sense to you? Is there something you didn't understand?

Look, as far as I'm concerned the analogy is like comparing oranges with apples, your posts really come across as very patronising cote - you should have a think about why you need to post like that. (Hides thread)

Oh great. Another one runs away

Here it is - Another example of debate failing to happen because the woo person makes a statement, can't/won't explain what she is talking about, then runs away.

My mil saw 2 ghosts. Her father saw a ghost.

I've no way of knowing if they did, or not.

But it would be nice to have a space to discuss it without being jumped on.

Debate is fine. People can put forward ideas of what they 'might have seen' or imagined.

It's tiresome when you can't say anything remotely psychic/ghosty/weird without being shouted down.