One of the problems many skeptics seem to have is that those who are “true believers” have difficulty simply understanding what it means to be skeptical in the first place. They don’t seem to recognize the importance of apply basic standards of reason and logic to beliefs they hold dear. How, then, can the two groups communicate?

In CSICOP Karla McLaren writes that there is basically a cultural difference that skeptics need to bridge - and as a one-time leader of New Age beliefs, she is in a position to know:

You see, I've been speaking to people in this New Age culture in their own language, and though I certainly was heard, I don't think that, in the end, I really did any good. Growing up as I did in nutty, kooky Marin County, I was able to see some of the most egregious examples of New Age chicanery - and as I matured into a writer and healer, I always warned against them. The problem is this: In my culture, you can't openly attack anyone or their character, and you can't use truly focused skepticism. In my culture, personal attacks are considered an example of emotional imbalance (where your emotions control you), while deep skepticism is considered a form of mental imbalance (where your intellect controls you). Both behaviors are serious cultural no-nos, because both the emotions and the intellect are considered troublesome areas of the psyche that do very little but keep one away from the (supposedly) true and meaningful realm of spirit. When I wrote my books and recorded my audio programs, I had to write and speak so carefully that it took most people two or three readings to figure out that I was directly challenging many of the foundations upon which the New Age is built. Actually, my culturally sensitive capacity to attack without attacking and criticize without criticizing was so effective that some avid readers still don't know what I was saying.

From a vantage point outside the New Age culture, my culture's disavowal of emotions and the intellect may seem very strange and nearly inexplicable. Nevertheless, it is a very real cultural component that must be understood and considered if any useful communication is going to occur. If we want to successfully communicate with someone, we've got to understand not just their language, but the cultural context from which their language springs. From what I've seen in both the New Age and the skeptical cultures, this understanding is absent. I certainly didn't understand the skeptical culture until I spent real time considering it as a culture - and I know from my reading that most people in the skeptical culture don't understand the New Age culture at all. As a result, the yelling between our cultures just becomes louder while the real communication falls into the chasm that divides us. In all the din, people in my culture hear what they deem to be hyper-intellectual and emotionally charged attacks upon their cherished beliefs, while people in your culture hear what they deem to be wishful thinking, scientific illiteracy, and emotionally charged salvos in defense of mere delusions.

McLaren both makes a lot of sense and makes absolutely no sense. As a general principle, I can’t fault the idea that in order to reach people you can accomplish a lot more if you at least try to “speak their language.” That’s a very sensible approach. If you couch things in terms familiar to them, it may be easier to get them to understand what you are saying — especially if what you are saying is something they may not really want to hear. So, for McLaren to recommend that is quite sensible.

However, McLaren then goes on to say that she has been doing just that. What has she accomplished? By her own words, she’s gotten nowhere. Part of the problem seems to be the very “culture” itself, the “culture” she is saying needs to be respected and accounted for. She’s arguing that skepticism should be explained to people whose “culture” deplores directed skepticism and anything that resembles a personal attack (which is what a criticism of another’s ideas will inevitably look like).

Why is she recommending something that she has failed to find useful? Granted, one might argue that the methodology is sound but that she has simply failed to implement it well. No one is perfect. However, I would think it likely that if anyone were to find success with this methodology, she’s be one of the top contenders. Not only does she know, understand, and speak the “culture” far better than the average skeptic, but being a part of the New Age community means that she has far more immediate credibility than any skeptical outsider could. To put it simply, she’s more likely to be believed and any missteps are more likely to be forgiven.

If she can’t make this work, I know that I can’t. It’s possible that certain other very good skeptics and very writers may have a shot, but I frankly wouldn’t wager money on it. I honestly don’t see how one can succeed at encouraging skepticism in people who object to the very idea of being skeptical and criticizing others. It’s true that certain aspects of skeptical critiques might be adjusted in order to tone down certain things, but is there much reason to think that this will help much?

McLaren would like to see a better bridge between skeptical and New Age communities. It’s a nice idea, but frankly I don’t see how one can exist. Skeptics value skepticism and intellectual engagement with difficult ideas. The New Age community, by all appearances, does not. What can possibly bridge these two perspectives?

Read More:

• Skepticism & Critical Thinking
• News About Skepticism and the Paranormal