Honey or Vinegar?

[Aught3]

One criticism that can be launched against the sceptical community is that it only preaches to the choir and had little impact on people in general. This often goes along with accusations of being strident, militant, or (my favourite) fundamentalist in what might be termed the vinegar approach. Although sceptics have a commitment to logic and evidence it's unlikely that someone who did not reason their way to a particular viewpoint can be reasoned out of it. Indeed, it might be the case that the vinegar approach merely serves to entrench a particular woo-believer more deeply in their faulty ideas. So the age-old question can be asked: Would sceptics catch more flies with honey?

I want to know what you think about the aims of the sceptical community and which approach they should take in order to achieve them. Honey or vinegar?

 

[Andiferous]

Honey is the nectar of the gods, after all.

 

[MRaverz]

Different people react to different approaches, personally however I prefer a honey route. I ask the questions they can't answer.

 

[Prolescum]

Honey is the nectar of the gods, after all.

And cinnamon, the Devil's dandruff.


I'm more of a honey type, because we often forget that they're still people at the end of the day, so there is always more common ground than we might like to admit. It's hard, because for someone like me, I find it interesting to talk about from practically any angle, but am easily frustrated by impenetrable walls of certainty and this reduces the overall tolerance for people with that religious mindset. It's a slippery slope.

That's not to say that we shouldn't mock it where appropriate, but the cold hard slap in the face has had little long term effect beyond hardening the skin in my experience. Take a look at GoodScienceForYou's forum and you can see how the collective pressure of his members' bombardment, (asking sensible questions for him to answer), created the now gated - and silent - community.

So, honey I think overall.

 

[obsidianavenger]

i think it depends on the person you're talking to. honey is always a good start, and more likely to be successful, but if its obvious the person you're talking with isn't interested in the truth, shredding them can at least get to any fence sitters that may be watching and maybe change their minds...

 

[magichands]

I think the process needs a mixture of both. You have to be forceful and militant; make them see the consequences of their actions if they don't act, but you also have to make sure you make them feel as though they can change for the better and that they need too.

I think the bigger question is: How do you convince people who have been living in ignorance perfectly fine for 30+ years of their life that they need to change and look at the long term future?

 

[borrofburi]

If you had asked me 3 months ago I would have sorely come down on the side of "honey". Now I think it takes more talent than that: what you have to do is make them realize they can't defend the position they hold without making them defensive; you have to attack their position, shred it to pieces, destroy it, but *not* them, they can't for an instant think you are attacking them, or they get defensive and clam their minds. This is significantly about perception and is excessively difficult considering that many of them have the majority of their identity as "christian"; to attack christianity without attacking their christian identity takes a sort of surgical precision.


Personally, I almost always start with science and the whole concept of rationality as the framework by which we judge our beliefs. Sometimes this means establishing evolution. Evolution tends to be the religion slayer for many. But science and reason are the necessary basics from which one must work, else we get into the problems of what is knowledge and what counts as knowledge, the christian will respond "I know jesus is real, I've felt him and we've had conversation" and if you haven't established reason, evidence, and science as the measuring sticks by which we judge "knowledge" you're in trouble.

But after that, if your goal is deconversion, pick on the elements of christianity that are close to home but that are not agreed on by the person you're talking to. You have a friend who believes in women's rights but is also christian? Point out Paul's sexism and ask for a response. You have a friend who loves science and technology, and fully realized evolution is valid science? Start by ridiculing creationists, you both agree they're stupid, and maybe start bringing the ridicule closer to home, e.g. paul's sexism, you friend might be a little sexist but he'll go "gee, borrofburi's such a nice intelligent guy, and he made fun of this, but I've never really thought it was that bad, is it that bad? I'm no sexist, but I always figured the concept of a equal but different ok..." and once you start thinking about it you realize that it is as sexist as "separate but equal" is racist.


But really, it's all about criticizing their beliefs without ever criticizing the person themself, and that takes an odd mixture of honey and vinegar applied in the right places.

 

[Finger]

I dislike this metaphor. Believers were already "caught" in something. Catching them in something else is just imprisoning them in another ideology. I'm trying to free the flies, even the ones who immediately fly back in. Using tricks like honey or vinegar to get them out is infective in the long-term because they will almost always fly into some other trap. Showing them how to recognize traps and avoid them is the ideal solution and that process should be honest and unbiased. The problem is that honesty is often construed as cruelty because people tend to feel personally attacked when their beliefs are questioned.

Guh... metaphor-speak is tiresome.

 

[Andiferous]

I dislike this metaphor. Believers were already "caught" in something. Catching them in something else is just imprisoning them in another ideology. I'm trying to free the flies, even the ones who immediately fly back in. Using tricks like honey or vinegar to get them out is infective in the long-term because they will almost always fly into some other trap. Showing them how to recognize traps and avoid them is the ideal solution and that process should be honest and unbiased. The problem is that honesty is often construed as cruelty because people tend to feel personally attacked when their beliefs are questioned.

Guh... metaphor-speak is tiresome.

Nice, and I'm in full agreement.

In terms of human beings, if you're going to discuss anything at all, honey is a nice medium in which to spew vinegar.

But spewing vinegar without being asked is kinda rude anyway.

 

[acheron]

Finger:

Well said; when I first looked at this poll I thought about it and decided not to vote because I didn't think that the choices were really proper. I certainly believe that rational and respectful discussion is the right way to debate philosophical topics, so I suppose some might see that as the "honey" side of the question, but you've put your finger exactly on the source of my unease. If I discussion philosophy and religion, it's because I think there's something to learn from the discussion, not to trap someone and "win".

 

[scalyblue]

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I dislike this metaphor. Believers were already "caught" in something. Catching them in something else is just imprisoning them in another ideology. I'm trying to free the flies, even the ones who immediately fly back in. Using tricks like honey or vinegar to get them out is infective in the long-term because they will almost always fly into some other trap. Showing them how to recognize traps and avoid them is the ideal solution and that process should be honest and unbiased. The problem is that honesty is often construed as cruelty because people tend to feel personally attacked when their beliefs are questioned.

Guh... metaphor-speak is tiresome.

Agreed - and well done: you've certainly put your finger on what's wrong with this poll's premise. [Pun intended.]

About the best one could say for the given choice is "Both" - honey for the person, vinegar for the "woo".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Ozymandyus]

Have you ever actually tried catching flies with honey and vinegar? You actually catch more flies with vinegar...

Edit: Aw man someone already brought this up, that image wasn't showing up for me earlier. I like the comic, I'll have to read more of those.

 

[Aught3]

God-damn all you literal minded people :lol:

Still I found my highly scientific poll to be rather interesting in that the majority have so far gone for the honey approach. Thanks to the people who were able to share the premise of the question and voted.

 

[Ozymandyus]

God-damn all you literal minded people :lol:

Still I found my highly scientific poll to be rather interesting in that the majority have so far gone for the honey approach. Thanks to the people who were able to share the premise of the question and voted.

Heh, sorry. I can't help it sometimes.

Anyway, I think it's not a very easy question - I have often said that atheists as a community are often a little overly harsh, and that it is counterproductive. But it really depends on the person, as others have said - some people need a harsh dose of the reality that they're living in a fantasy land from time to time, and others need a sweet and gentle reminder...

So really, a little vinegar, a little sugar, maybe some salt... perhaps a couple teaspoons of oil. Oh wait, that's my recipe for a balsamic vinaigrette.

 

[nemesiss]

i prefer shiny thingies.

a better way to attract people is to use something that appeals to them, haven't you been paying attention how commercials are made?
in most commercials they use sexy people in sexy clothing in situations which brings out their sexyness.... yes, SEX(Y) SELLS!

 

[Minty]

I think honey tastes nicer, but vinegar is nice on chips. I'm going to go with honey because I'm starting beekeeping this summer :3

 

[e2iPi]

SEX(Y) SELLS!

We win:

Us

Them

 

[Friday]

To individuals who are being sucked in by such shite - honey, so as not to put them on the defensive.

To groups of people - vinegar, as acid critique generates laughter, which is by far the best response to wibble!

 

[Deleted member 619]

I tend to employ both approaches, depending on the goddite in question and their attitude.

Interestingly, I did a little field test on RDF not long before the late unpleasantness, in which I eschewed the expletives completely for about a month. Not a rigorous experiment by any stretch, and it's not easy to draw any solid conclusions, but I advised the other sweary one beforehand. We both noticed that, during that time, the fundites were much more confrontational toward me than at times when I had been in full avenging angel mode.

Ultimately, people are different, and neither approach is generall more effective than the other. It depends entirely on who you're dealing with. This is true whether you're dealing with people on the front line or just interested observers.

The other thing to remember is motivation. My motivation is not to convince those that hold these ridiculous beliefs that they're wrong. My motivation is and has always been the onlookers and the undecided. That's the main reason that the majority of my time was spent at RDF, because the profile of the forum drew in many people hovering on the edge of unbelief. They are the target.