From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 13:27:57 MDT
Someone wrote me off list and asked about the death of the Inquiring
Skeptics of Upper New York. (I spent about four years as vice-president
of that group and one as president.)
I thought part of the lessons learned would be worth sharing.
I've given a lot of thought as to why skeptics groups die off and such
and might some day put something up on my website about it. What's been
holding me back is that I don't wish to waste time with a "he said/ she
said/ and they were wrong and I was right" sort of thing that would just
be stupid and childish. Much of what happened still makes the people
involved emotional. (including me.)
However there are lessons that I think anyone involved with a local
group should consider.
Part of the problem(s) I think are:
1) Unlike many organization (such as boy scout troops, bowling
leagues, the Elks, etc.) nobody is quite sure what a skeptics group
should do. For instance, one issue was the desire of some to explore
haunted houses and do a firewalk while others felt this was totally
innapropriate to the extent that it should actively be prevented by any
means necessary.
2) Since skeptics groups tend to be run by a few people who form the
group to do what it wants, and since ultimately people tend to get
burned out doing the same thing, and people who approach the group
hesitantly and then find out that it doesn't do the sorts of activities
they would like it to, tends to leave, the result is a small group of
people who drive the organization along to act along narrow lines and
then ultimately these people get burned out before they are replaced.
Therefore if the focus of the group's activities is too narrow,
people tend to get burned out before they can be replaced.
3) Since skeptics, as a group, pride themselves on their ability to
think logically, they sometimes tend to be a bit sure of themselves.
After all, compared to most people, they are more likely to be factually
correct in their conclusions than many people one meets. On the other
hand, some skeptics become overconfident in their thinking abilities and
feel they are "correct" when others disagree with them, when often the
issues under discussion do not fall within the "correct/ incorrect"
paradigm. (i.e. "Is it appropriate for a skeptics group newsletter to
list a planned bowling outing for its members?" This is strictly a
hypothetical example, but I think many of the people who are willing to
volunteer time to make a skeptics group work also assume there is a
correct answer to this question, when of course it is not a yes or no
question. OTOH, the fact is that ultimately one has to make a yes or no
decision if such an issue is raised or suggested within a skeptics
group.)
Therefore, many but not all of the sorts of persons who volunteer to
help run a skeptics group show rigid thought patterns.
4) These problems, in my opinion, were not helped by the fact that
for much of the group's history, we did not hold regular officers
meetings and instead tried to manage things by using an e-mail list.
E-mail is good for some things. Face to face communication is required
for others, especially complex fuzzy issues (i.e. to repeat the above
hypothetical bowling issue, it could easily turn into a yes/ no --
right/wrong flamewar by e-mail.)
Another problem with not holding officers' meetings is it makes it
more difficult to recruit people to get involved in helping the group
run. i.e. if you have officers meetings, it is relatively easy to say to
someone who appears quite interested in the group, "How would you like
to come to an officers' meeting? There's no obligation to do anything,
but you'll get a chance to see how things are run." Often you can get
such people to do something small that way and thus set the groundwork
for many things.
I think one reason there were not officers meetings is that many
people assumed from the beginning that all who wished to join a skeptics
group would agree with their logic and vision, and thus there would be
little to discuss.
Enough said. I reserve the right to drop out of any discussions on
this issue, simply because I don't want to open too many cans of worms
and so on. Sometimes it's best to let wounded dogs fester (or something
like that.) and this can be an emotional issue for me.
-- “Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress.” Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 13:39:57 MDT