posted
I'm trying to pin down an aspect of my personality, and trying to understand a little something about others at the same time. The three terms I'm going to use below I will be defining in my own personal way, so please bear with me:
A Skeptic, as I've come to understand it, is one who, when presented with new information, is very wary about accepting it until they obtain hard proof as to its veracity. Skeptics (as I've defined them) usually actively fight new information, and won't even consider the new information as true until they grill those who present it with accusational questions. This would be, in other words, the principle of Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
The Gullible are the opposite. They will accept any and all information quickly without question, even if it appears to contradict what they may have thought before. People often like to play around with them, and because of this, they are often taken advantage of and mocked. Theirs would be the principle of Innocent Without Trial.
And then there's The Seeker, which, according to my personal definition, is how I somewhat think of myself. A Seeker actively looks for new information to complement and add to their knowledge. When new information is presented, if it doesn't appear to contradict the knowledge they already understand to be true, they provisionally accept the information as being feasable and acceptable, barring further proof that would debunk the idea. Theirs would be the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Using these descriptions of these categories, where would you fit? Or how would you tweak the given definitions to more accurately describe you?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a little problem with a skeptic being someone who believes in the principle of guilty until proven innocent (I know we're not specifically talking about court trial terminology here).
For most 'things' I would like to consider myself a skeptic. But, at the same time, I also believe I try to seek out new information and expand my knowledge - I'm just skeptical about most of the information I find until I've satisfied myself with tedious, accusational questions.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
1st) You have converted perfectly good terms such as skeptic, gullible and seeker into value-laden terms having to do with guilt and innocence. I object strenuously to this perversion of the meanings of the terms skeptic and gullible, at the very least.
2nd) Your categorization breaks down completely when you try to equate "seeking" with "innocent until proven guilty" as if that was somehow on the continuum between skepticism and gullibility.
3rd) I think your problem is with the newness of the knowledge or information in question. A skeptic isn't practicing skepticism only with new things. A skeptic takes a hard cold look at everything, to a greater or lesser extent. And, when a new "fact" contradicts things that have already passed that skeptical filter, the skeptic is likely to refuse to accept them until further proof is offered. But it's not a question of "guilt" it's a question of inconsistency with things the skeptic has already looked at critically and come to accept.
The gullible person will also tend to reject new information if it contradicts an established belief that he or she holds dear. No amount of contrary evidence will convince a gullible person that the pet belief is incorrect. That's one aspect of gullibility. An ease of convincing the person in the first place is just one aspect of it.
Anyway, I'm sorry I can't really hold with your categories, so I can't put myself on the continuum.
I consider myself a "seeker" in the generallly accepted use of that term. I don't recognize myself in any of the definitions you've provided here, though.
Probably closest to what I think you mean by skeptic.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
If we're just talking in terms of knowledge, then I think I would be a Judge (no pun on the law-terminology intended) - I follow the Innocent Until Proven Guilty principle, but while I'm not as active in finding information as the Seeker I will readilly and eagerly assess any that I come across. If we're including social situations, though, I'm a tad gullible, mostly because despite being toyed with as you mentioned I still assume that people are honest until proven otherwise. I'm a bit unforgiving, though, in the sense that if someone is dishonest with me it's very very hard for me to be around that person (I'm always wondering if they're being sincere, frustrated when they're not, etc.) and I will generally avoid their company.
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Three represent extremes. While I have known people who would fall neatly into each of those categories, I admit that the majority probably fall inbetween the lines somewhere.
I was using "Innocent" and "Guilty" only to contrast with a familiar phrase and principle/concept. More literally, one would say "False Until Proven True", "True Without Trial", and "True Until Proven False".
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still assume that people are honest until proven otherwise.
This I think is an important point, and one's assumptions of honesty, I think, are thoughts that should be integrated onto the definitions.
I agree - unless I have a particular reason to believe someone is being dishonest, I generally like to believe people are not 'out to get me'. My father has been shown to be opposite, perhaps because he has had encountered many, many people who have gone behind his back, and actually have been out to get him. For him, it's what appears to me as an over-evolved defense mechanism.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about: Accepts information if presented by someone who has appropriate credentials or a person who has the respect the one accepting the information. (I'm sure someone could put this into better words than I could)
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And then there's The Seeker, which, according to my personal definition, is how I somewhat think of myself. A Seeker actively looks for new information to complement and add to their knowledge. When new information is presented, if it doesn't appear to contradict the knowledge they already understand to be true, they provisionally accept the information as being feasable and acceptable, barring further proof that would debunk the idea
Hm. The problem here is that you are specifically defining your other two extremes as unreasonable extremes, which is guaranteed to make them seem less desirable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think now that almost all of them can be combined to make less-absolutes.
Perhaps someone could define the resulting terms:
-The Skeptical Seeker -The Gullible Skeptic (I think this would be what Bob described when he said "The gullible person will also tend to reject new information if it contradicts an established belief that he or she holds dear.")
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
