Hay House Interview

I'm on Hay House radio today, 7pm GMT, 11am PST. The listener call in number is 866-254-1579 in case anyone wants to ask questions.

Comments

[RabbitDawg]

Saw the post too late to listen in time, but I noticed that they have an archive. I assume it will be added there soon. Won't it ?

[Robert McLuhan]

I guess so, but it looks as though you may have to subscribe to the site to listen to archive material. I'll keep an eye and let you know.

[Linda]

listening to your interview right now - really interesting will be getting your book too now, thanks for coming on Hay House I might not of heard of you otherwise!

Ps hope you dont mind I'm sharing your book link on FB. Btw - Hay House repeat each item about 6 times before archiving

[David]

In case anyone is having trouble finding the interview, here is a direct link to the recording:

http://www.hayhouseradio.com/listenagain.php?latest=true&archive_link_type=link_mp3&archive_id=8420&show_id=149&episode_id=7420

Not sure how long it's available for though.

[Robert Perry]

David, thank you very much for that link.

Just listened to the show and I really enjoyed it. The interviewer was obviously intelligent and extremely knowledgeable in his own right. What I particularly appreciated, Robert, was your basic stance as a reasonable person just trying to make sense of things, not wanting to malign anyone, yet still wanting to settle on solid answers and willing to take definite stands. When talking about the skeptics, it is very easy to get into a tear-your-hair-out frenzy where you just want to nail these guys against the wall. I've seen that on some of the blogs and, while I know exactly how someone can get into that kind of a state, it really makes me wince. I feel like the kind of civility you express is crucial to an enterprise like this. Yet we don't want to be civil to the point of evasiveness and equivocation. For that reason I really appreciated your willingness to not only state big conclusions about the paranormal, but also go down the line and give specific opinions about Randi, Shermer, Hyman, and Kurtz. Your style is obviously not going to weave any sort of rock star aura around you and catapult you into fame, but for some of us it's exactly what we want.

[Robert McLuhan]

Darn, I was really hoping for the rock star thing :)

But thanks for the kind comments. Actually I feel a bit constrained doing these interviews, particularly in the US. The style is quite unfamiliar to me and it seems so far away. I also feel I'm expected to be polemical about sceptics when most of the time I can't get that worked up. It's the way they argue that gets me hot and bothered, not a personal thing. Not that the interviewer was pushing for that, but I sense it's what listeners want.

[Paul]

I haven't heard the interview Robert but your comment regarding the expectation that there will be some form of combat certainly chimes with me.

I don't think an adversarial approach leads to the truth of the matter IMHO. In my experience it often leads to a kind of information 'mush' in which it is difficult to form a clear view on the matter in question.

I am perhaps biased but I do find it difficult to understand how anyone who has looked at the available evidence can, in all honesty, be so certain that we do not survive death and that psi phenomena do not exist. I am not saying that the case is proved and therefore it is a matter of fact for those who have not experienced such phenomena, however to adopt the position that there is no, or little, evidence to support it seems to me either ignorant or dishonest.

[Robert McLuhan]

'I do find it difficult to understand'

Yes me too, but we have to try!

My growing feeling is that evidence really doesn't count for much if it goes against one's deepest convictions. This is obvious, of course - we see it all around us. We make the facts fit our worldview, which in turn is based on emotive responses to our experience as much as rational inferences. But it feels so counterintuitive.

I think that's going to be a big part of whatever I write next, in terms of books. My idea is to talk to humanists and sceptics and try to understand the basis of their thinking, in a non-confrontational way.

[Paul]

I think you're right regarding evidence. As far as deep convictions are concerned, unless one is prepared to re-examine them, any change may be difficult and potentially painful I suppose. At least I found it to be so and it was only through a couple of profound events in my life that I was able to shake off such deep convictions and develop a more open mind.

I don't think we are obliged to change, or even attempt to change the opinion of those who are not receptive or sufficiently open-minded. To force the issue can only result in conflict and deeper entrenchment for most. It seems to me that some life-event is required to shake the comfortable certainty of deeply-held-but-not-deeply-researched opinions.

Making sure the information is available to those who are prepared to make the effort to look into it, and that folks are aware that such information exists seems to be enough to me.

[Robert Perry]

Robert, what you say about your next book is intriguing. I don't know what moves people to change their minds, but I think the professional skeptics are not the right symbol for all those out there who are skeptical. There must be a good slice of the general populace that is skeptical but open to good evidence and solid argumentation. At least I hope so.

By the way, I hope your area is well clear of the riots over there. I can't believe what I am seeing on the news. It's like something out of a bad dream.

[Robert McLuhan]

'There must be a good slice of the general populace that is skeptical but open to good evidence' - It would be good to try to start a public discussion, at the very least. My impression is that the evidence isn't at all well known, so there's work to be done there.

Actually we did get caught up in the riots, as my neighbourhood is quite close to Peckham, a notoriously dysfunctional bit of South London (I posted about this today). We stayed in until the coast was clear, so managed to avoid the worst of it.

[Robert Perry]

I just reread your comment about starting a public discussion. There is something to be said for that, now that you mention it. A public discussion is certainly very different from scornful skeptics trying to take down psi researchers. A real public discussion would have a variety of viewpoints, many of them more open to wherever the evidence might lead us.

I wonder what form or forms such a discussion might take.