What is Retrospectacle? This series of posts are a kind of Thomas Dolby-inspired ‘retrospectacle’ of earlier popular entries from my site, which will fill in during the time that I am away from this site for about a week. Even though this blog post is from an earlier time — enjoy, feel free to comment and see you later!
*****
The popular website Yahoo Answers (at http://answers.yahoo.com) has a response to the question ‘Why are men always more skeptical than women?’ – apparently men are ’smarter and not as naïve’.
This was voted the best response to the question, on a site visited by hundreds of thousands of people, with no references or detailed discussion regarding the contributor’s conclusion: when women believe in ‘weird things’ they lack a skeptical-savviness and are burdened with a dearth of intelligence. What do we know about whether women have a tendency to be more skeptically-minded or not?
Psychological research demonstrates that cognitive differences do not equal cognitive deficiencies – in the case of paranormal and supernatural beliefs, there is certainly evidence that women are more likely to affirm their beliefs, but it does not mean that they are definitely more credulous or lacking in intellect. From statistical analysis of surveys to a recent article published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience on the presence of dopamine and its influence on the brain, we naturally learn more and more over time about belief in the ‘weird things’.
The paranormal is a term that generally refers to alleged phenomena or events asserted to be outside the range of ordinarily accepted forces (Lett, 1990) and belief in the paranormal is no longer considered an eccentricity in the modern world. We can find ‘psychic readings’ in popular women’s magazines and thousands of people attend the ‘speaking with the dead’ extravaganzas of John Edward and Sylvia Browne. Paranormal beliefs are often associated with practices of the occult, magic (as opposed to dramatic performances, sleight-of-hand and dextrous manipulation of items to create illusions), and superstitions. Studies of paranormal beliefs are often done in conjunction with pseudoscientific beliefs, which, according to Preece and Baxter (2000), involves a set of ideas or theories which are claimed to be scientific but which are contrary to standard science and have failed empirical tests (or which cannot in principle be tested), such as the claims of ‘new age’ practices like crystal healing or reiki.
The study of sex differences in science refers to biological differences such as chromosomes and internal and external sex organs; ‘gender’ describes characteristics that an individual’s society defines as masculine or feminine (Unger & Crawford, 1992). Research into believers of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims often compare how males and females respond to surveys on the existence of UFOs, ghosts, whether astrology accurately reflects our lives and so forth (Gallup & Newport, 1991; Wolfradt, 1997; Shermer, 2001). In 2007, a representative quota sample of 1,005 adults in Great Britain aged from 16 years and upward were interviewed via telephone, demonstrating that within the sample belief in telepathy was very strong amongst women (47%) with one in four consulting their horoscope regularly and one in four of those believing ‘that horoscopes accurately predicted events in their lives’ (Ipsos-MORI, 2007).
Paranormal beliefs can be influenced by cultural factors such as family, peer groups, media influences, and the persuasive power of social institutions (e.g., religious or cultural groups) and education (Clark, 2002; Díaz-Vilela & Álvarez-González, 2004; Schriever, 2000). Socialisation has been used to explain gender differences concerning the extent of paranormal beliefs. Clark (2005) for example, noted the prevalence of popular culture and new age beliefs in teenage females, while Mason, Webber, Singleton and Hughes (2006) recorded a shift towards secular views of the world, some of which incorporate new age beliefs and practices.
Studies using intelligence tests in conjunction with belief in the paranormal have yielded mixed findings, with some failing to find a relationship (e.g., Wiseman & Watt, 2004) and others demonstrating higher IQ scores in believers than disbelievers (Jones, Russell, & Nickel, 1977). Otis and Alcock (1982) found that an individual’s level of skepticism is negatively related to superstitious beliefs and individuals in certain academic fields may possess a greater level of skepticism than others. Individuals from the natural sciences have been found to be more skeptical than individuals from the humanities, arts, and education, while individuals working in the arts and humanities tend to be relatively more superstitious than individuals in other academic fields (Happs, 1987; Otis & Alcock, 1982; Shermer, 1997). If we take into consideration how traditionally men dominate the fields of science and mathematics, women may be at a disadvantage when it comes to developing a ‘skeptical mindset’.
While formal education increases the likelihood of skepticism and a reduction in superstition (Vyse, 1997), 
Aarnio and Lindeman’s (2006) study of 239 Finnish volunteers demonstrated a disassociation between intuitive thinking (rather than analytical thinking) and skepticism. Paranormal-believing participants demonstrated less emotional stability and assigned more purpose to artificial and random events, thereby pointing to a problem with confusion of core knowledge (knowledge learned without instruction, in terms of intuitive comprehension of physical, biological and psychological entities as well as their processes). Hood (2009) argues that females (as biologically defined) are more inclined as a group towards intuitive reasoning, involving genetic predisposition. His theory of the ‘supersense’, or the human brain’s pre-wiring towards supporting intuitions and superstitions, is suggested as a key to understanding how we can rationalise beliefs. There is also a commonly-held stereotype that women demonstrate better performances on social cognition tests, such as face processing and theory of mind in comparison to men, leading to women demonstrating social skills and understanding other’s perspectives more easily.
A very recent study using a drug called L-dopa (sometimes applied in treatment of Parkinson’s disease by raising levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain) led experimenters to infer that its presence decreased sensitivity to perceptual-cognitive decisions and promoted conservative in the sample of skeptically-minded participants (Krummenacher, Mohr, Haker & Brugger, 2009). These results led to the conclusion that paranormal ideation might profoundly modulate pain assessment, assessment of risky scenarios, recognition of patterns and decision making. An earlier study by Mohr, Graves, Gianotti, Pizzagalli, and Brugger (2001) also contributed to investigating what commonalities there are between creative thinking, paranormal belief and delusional ideation – leading to further questions as to whether dopamine is the “gullibility neurotransmitter” for non-skeptical people (particularly when the first study only used males and the second used a small number of subjects).
As research continues into the origins and influences upon paranormal and pseudoscientific belief, the contributions of cognitive neuroscience and technology brings us closer to understanding better the need to believe in ‘weird things’. Creative thinking, intuition and highly-developed interpersonal skills cannot be discounted as useless, yet the potential for paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs to lead members of either sex towards dangerous practices shouldn’t be ignored either. In the meantime, the summation provided by a popular site like Yahoo Answers about what makes a ‘believing in the weird’ woman is hardly conclusive, nor complimentary.
Select Bibliography
Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2006). Superstitious, magical and paranormal beliefs: An integrative model. Journal of Research into Personality, 41(4), 731-744.
Clark, L. S. (2002). U.S Adolescent religious identity, the media and the ‘funky’ side of religion. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 794-881.
Clark, L.S. (2005). From Angels to Aliens. Teenagers, the Media, and the Supernatural. Oxford University Press: USA
Hood, B. M. (2009). Supersense: Why We Believe the Unbelievable. HarperOne, San Francisco, CA.
Krummenacher P., Mohr, C., Haker, H., & Brugger, P. (2009). Dopamine, Paranormal Belief, and the Detection of Meaningful Stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(7).
Mason, M., Webber, R., Singleton, A., & Hughes, P. (2006). The spirit of Generation Y: A summary of the final report of a three year study. Australian Policy Online, http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/spir/sppub/sppub.htm.
Otis, L. P. & Alcock, J.E. (1982). Factors Affecting Extraordinary Belief. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 77-85
Shermer, M. (2001) Polls show paranormal beliefs on the rise, evolution belief on the decline. Skeptic 9(1), 10-11.
Smith, M. D., Foster, C. L., & Stovin, G. (1998). Intelligence and paranormal belief: Examining the role of context. The Journal of Paranormal Psychology, 62, 65-77.
Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vyse, S. A. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolfradt, U. (1997). Dissociative experiences, trait anxiety and paranormal beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 15-19.
Krummenacher P, Mohr C, Haker H, & Brugger P (2009). Dopamine, Paranormal Belief, and the Detection of Meaningful Stimuli. Journal of cognitive neuroscience PMID: 19642883
![[Valid RSS]](http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9879/validrsscf0.png "Validate my RSS feed")
{ 1 comment }
Yahoo answers is the best site to go to if you want a laugh rather than an accurate response.
David Blaine recently performed a trick where he “predicted” the lotto results. His explanation of how he did it was that he asked 24 people to guess the numbers and he averaged those out, saying that the consensus would lead to greater accuracy.
Yahoo answers demonstrates perfectly how this whole idea is completely false. YA relies on this same principle. Anybody can answer, anybody can vote answers up or down, the more answers you give that are voted up the greater sway your votes have. Looking through what gets put up there as answers though you’re more likely to get something inaccurate or blatantly false and completely against demonstratable scientific evidence voted to be the top answer.
Comments on this entry are closed.