So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[BobbyO]

Oy vey, another "let's label the skeptics and subtly insinuate that they have mental issues or they wouldn't be here" thread? What is this, the fifth on the BFF 2.0?

If it is, it would still be far behind the Posts with the roles reversed that have been made over the Years on these Forums..

[kitakaze]

Hey skeptics, how did you test out on the Meyers Briggs?

ENTJ - The Fieldmarshal...

Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition it is the marshaling or situational organizing role that reaches the highest development in the Fieldmarshal. As this kind of role is practiced some contingency organizing is necessary, so that the second suit of the Fieldmarshal's intellect is devising contingency plans. Structural and functional engineering, though practiced in some degree in the course of organizational operations, tend to be not nearly as well developed and are soon outstripped by the rapidly growing skills in organizing. But it must be said that any kind of strategic exercise tends to bring added strength to engineering as well as organizing skills.

Hardly more than two percent of the total population, Fieldmarshals are bound to lead others, and from an early age they can be observed taking command of groups. In some cases, they simply find themselves in charge of groups, and are mystified as to how this happened. But the reason is that they have a strong natural urge to give structure and direction wherever they are - to harness people in the field and to direct them to achieve distant goals. They resemble Supervisors in their tendency to establish plans for a task, enterprise, or organization, but Fieldmarshals search more for policy and goals than for regulations and procedures.

They cannot not build organizations, and cannot not push to implement their goals. When in charge of an organization, whether in the military, business, education, or government, Fieldmarshals more than any other type desire (and generally have the ability) to visualize where the organization is going, and they seem able to communicate that vision to others. Their organizational and coordinating skills tends to be highly developed, which means that they are likely to be good at systematizing, ordering priorities, generalizing, summarizing, marshaling evidence, and at demonstrating their ideas. Their ability to organize, however, may be more highly developed than their ability to analyze, and the Fieldmarshal leader may need to turn to an Inventor or Architect to provide this kind of input.

Fieldmarshals will usually rise to positions of responsibility and enjoy being executives. They are tireless in their devotion to their jobs and can easily block out other areas of life for the sake of their work. Superb administrators in any field - medicine, law, business, education, government, the military - Fieldmarshals organize their units into smooth-functioning systems, planning in advance, keeping both short-term and long-range objectives well in mind. For the Fieldmarshal, there must always be a goal-directed reason for doing anything, and people's feelings usually are not sufficient reason. They prefer decisions to be based on impersonal data, want to work from well thought-out plans, like to use engineered operations - and they expect others to follow suit. They are ever intent on reducing bureaucratic red tape, task redundancy, and aimless confusion in the workplace, and they are willing to dismiss employees who cannot get with the program and increase their efficiency. Although Fieldmarshals are tolerant of established procedures, they can and will abandon any procedure when it can be shown to be ineffective in accomplishing its goal. Fieldmarshals root out and reject ineffectiveness and inefficiency, and are impatient with repetition of error.

I'm the boss.

And how about average posts per day?

About seven. 3087 overall. Poster #1. I'm the boss.

But in all seriousness, no. In my daily life being front and center is what I do. Contolling the crowd, being on stage is this way. Of course it crosses over into Internet clack-a-lack. I have flying fingers and a strong will to articulate what I think. It doesn't mean I am arrogant or not willing to consider the experiences of others.

But I do ask for reliable evidence of Bigfoot. This is not wrong. This is not obstinence. It is not selfishness. It's not scoffing or denial. People want the same evidence for Bigfoot we have for every other large mammal in North America. If someone suggests foo foo nonsense why we don't have it, then I am a scoftic.

I was a Bigfoot believer, hardcore. I dipped deep in the well of Bigfoot belief. Every strand came to nothing. All of it evaporated to the realm of social construct. I can't invest belief in a myth, but I can give interest. The culture is an animal far more wild and unpredictable than any beast unheretofore undiscovered.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Oy vey, another "let's label the skeptics and subtly insinuate that they have mental issues or they wouldn't be here" thread? What is this, the fifth on the BFF 2.0?

I am very interested in bigfoot and have been since I was a boy.

I would love for bigfoot to be real.

Based on my examination of the evidence, I am unconvinced that such creatures exist.

You can call me a skeptic, a scoftic, a denialist or whatever else floats your boat.

It will be an objectionable new chore; arduous and unpleasant.

[Guest HairyGreek]

But I do ask for reliable evidence of Bigfoot. This is not wrong. This is not obstinence. It is not selfishness. It's not scoffing or denial. People want the same evidence for Bigfoot we have for every other large mammal in North America. If someone suggests foo foo nonsense why we don't have it, then I am a scoftic.

I'm sorry if this comes off as attacking, but do you require as much from Bob H. regarding the truth and/or reliable evidence? It wouldn't seem so from the discussions you usually stick to over in the P&GF area. You seem to be willing to regurgitate and defend most anything he says while treating the other side with a grain of salt. This does not seem like healthy productive criticism to me.

Granted, I don't always hang out to see the same argument play out over and over in the audio/video section. For all I know you actually concede a point now and again. I am sure you and others will come to your defense if I am mistaken. Just sayin'.

Really, I will say again, I think a lot of skeptics are coming on here getting offended without reading all the posts though. The TS seems to mean skofftics, not skeptics. If this is rightly the case, I will say again, there is nothing a skofftic can do that a healthy skeptic couldn't do better.

[Guest]

I just don't understand the exercise in futility if you don't think there is anything out there.

You assume that the primary motivation for someone like me to come to the BFF would be to examine the evidence and make a decision on whether they accept it or not. That's not too far from the truth. When I discovered the Internet and re-discovered the world of bigfoot those many years ago, I was shocked by how much new evidence there appeared to be. So I started lurking and then participating on the BFF as a way to critically examine that evidence. I still wouldn't have labeled myself a "fence-sitter" at that point, but I didn't want to dismiss the newer evidence out of hand. (By "newer" I refer to basically anything bigfooty since about 1975.)

My examination of that evidence failed to budge me from my position of disbelief in bigfoot, but along the way I derived many benefits from my participation. I learned a lot from some really smart people, I met some nice people with whom I enjoyed lively banter, I had an outlet to deliver written "lectures" on topics like forest ecology and Quaternary mammal faunas to a whole new audience of people, I improved tremendously in my own critical thinking skills, etc. So the benefits of BFF participation are not limited to sharing one's story about a bigfoot sighting or trying to decide if bigfoot is real.

I often draw on my experience as a biologist in my posts, but I actually spend a much bigger proportion of my time being an educator. (I have 190 papers to grade today, for example.) I am very interested in why people believe the things they do, and in getting them to critically evaluate their beliefs. I have always written here that I don't mind if people believe in bigfoot, but that I'd want them to believe for the right reasons. ("My buddy's grandad said he saw one" doesn't cut it.) By the same token, I take lazy skeptics to task when they dismiss bigfoot on shoddy arguments like "That guy said he faked all the tracks back in the '60s."

Bigfoot believers might be fairly often confronted with people who don't share their belief, but those disbelievers don't usually know that much about bigfoot. They're easy to ignore because they're ignorant. I'm not. I know about bigfoot. So when we reach a point in discussion in which I propose the explanation to the issue at hand is that there is no bigfoot, I'm hopefully getting some people to really think about the weight of the evidence on which their belief is based. I'm not out to convert people away from believing in bigfoot (especially the eyewitnesses for whom that would be nigh-on impossible), but I am trying to get them to really think about why they do. The world is fascinating whether we've got people believing in a giant ape-man who really isn't there or we've got a giant ape-man that we can't seem to find.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Thanks Saskeptic. Well said and +1. You have given me a new way to look at it and something to think about. Your response is much appreciated. I hope you never thought I was suggesting you were not a valued member here because of your stance, I just didn't understand the why of you being a valued member here as it just looked like waisting time. It clearly has not been that for you or others who have read your posts despite disagreeing.

gigantor - sorry if I got too touchy-feely in my post.

Edited September 23, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest para ape]

I say it's to ridicule the believers and break their spirit.

Also,it's to disprove the creature's existence.

Speaking of skeptics.I only know of three on this forum,parnassus,saskeptic,and guy in Indiana.Are there any more?

[Incorrigible1]

I say it's to ridicule the believers and break their spirit.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Careful para...someone is going to start a troll thread if you start naming names. Especially since you mixed a guy in your names who definitely not a skeptic of anything except your point of view. Once again, skeptics are neccesary. People who won't listen to reason or anyone else's side...? Not so much...

Edited September 23, 2011 by HairyGreek

[wolftrax]

The real question is why is everyone here obsessed with bigfoot? The answer to that is the answer to the OP.

[Guest]

Why would you think that Para? I've never seen you participate in any kind of real debate to ascertain whether a skeptic was trying to break your spirit. Technically though, the actual spirit is not breakable. It's your will that gets broken. A paranormal enthusiast should know the difference.

[bipedalist]

I say it's to ridicule the believers and break their spirit.

Also,it's to disprove the creature's existence.

Speaking of skeptics.I only know of three on this forum,parnassus,saskeptic,and guy in Indiana.Are there any more?

Maybe you should PM these guys before pigeon-holing them. My last info. says that two of the three have had sightings (or suspected sightings).

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Interesting Art.

I’d put it even more simply, like this:

Believer – does not question

Skeptic – questions

Non-believer – does not question

I think most people on this board are skeptics, even if they won’t admit it.

I consider myself a Non-believer; Does holding out for a "Valid and Demonstrable Bigfoot" count as "does not question?"

I think it's justifiable to hold onto this non-belief.

When sufficient evidence is provided; I will discard whatever position I evidently hold as true.

(I will no longer be able to reject the belief in Bigfoot/giant hairy Hominin equipped with midtarsal break)

...Until then, the Bigfoot assertion that is posited as true; should be prefaced with: I believe.

Skeptic – questions: My Skepticism - logic, reasoning and the evaluation of evidence.

Believing or not Believing in something (I'm OK with) People have any number of reasons to believe.

I have a problem when that belief is inherently dishonest and stuffed full of ignorance.

Here's my Bigfoot bald assertion for today: Bigfoot is a transcendent being that has special rules all to itself. Bigfoot can eat flies on a lily pad and be the perched bird singing on a branch at the same time: I might have to re-test, revise, then re-submit that one. I crossed a big gap - A bent sapling (insert gap here) to a transcendent entity: a frog, a bird, a Bigfoot in the flesh/all in one/transcendent being.

Hi! I'm Bigfoot, a transcendent Bigfoot, I never grow tired. I walk endlessly in the woods.

Really, if one wants to look and believe (I'm OK with that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDweiDAQYc

[Guest HairyGreek]

If you were "wondering when post #25 would arrive: indicates that you were looking to provoke the response.

Well you got it, it appears that you really were not interested in why skeptics remain on this site, rather you just wanted to provoke.

You registered on this site back in July, so in all likely-hood you have read or at least are aware of some of these similar threads before and you knew how many of them ended before you posted this one

There are multiple threads with skeptics and skofftics alike challenging a poster regarding his/her motivations. Why should skeptics and skofftics be exempt from the same question now and again? Some skeptics claim they do everyone a service by providing an alternative answer to blind belief; and they do. BUT...!

Just look at this thread as a way to keep the skeptic/skofftic honest as well. Skeptics/skofftics love jumping on a bandwagon until the wheels come off when someone makes a mistake in their reasoning or logic; but question theirs? WAAAAHHHHHH!!

Also, maybe Art's more expansive list is correct after reading Saskeptic's answer. It is a lot more complicated an issue.

Edited September 23, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest]

Maybe.....just maybe we need one another, in order to bring out the best in our arguments and "discussion", doesnt matter which side of the debate you're on.

Jean Girard: NO! I will battle you with the entirety of my heart and you will probably lose. But maybe, just maybe. You might challenge me. God needs the Devil, The Beatles needed the Rolling Stones. Even Diane Sawyer needed Katie Couric. Will you be my Katie Couric?

Ricky Bobby: Wow I feel like I'm in Highlander.