carnival73: So when making that intellectual jump and now able to take awareness to the those idiosyncrasies that are always happening I drove myself mad in fear that I had gone mad.
Well, not wanting to fuel your "idiosynchrasies" further but that kind of what I study these days. We have some foreigners expecting to get international protection in Europe, and claiming that they flee sorcery. To the EU laws and asylum system, it is absurd because, in Europe, magic officially doesn't exist, and therefore cannot be recognised as a "well-grounded fear of persecution". But we can assume that for some of these people, it is a very sincere fear, with devastating psychological effects. Also, for an anthropologist, witchcraft is a social reality, with genuine social consequences (ostracism, vandetta, depression, etc).
But the tendency seems to be to "psychologize" the issue of these asylum seekers, and send them to the shrink in order to "heal" them from their worldview. As if their cultural common sense and the interpretative grid that they were raised with were a "mental disorder". Basically, traditional belief is a disease - but, of course, belief in resurrecting demigods walking on water is completely sane. So, there's the question of what endorsed belief makes you supposedly "mad".
That said, I'm from a skeptical background too, and we face some crazy shit in anthropology. But I have no issue with that. We try less to find out about a truth than to take in account collectively endorsed truths, and see them as interpretations. With the added wildcard of "symbolic efficiency" (beliefs and symbols have effects on people - some may call it "placebo" too). I'm way past the little war of rationalists. My point is - worldviews don't have to conflict, or to be fully endorsed. Keep in mind parallel possible interpretations, hop from one to the other (you may keep one as "yours, seriously" and the other one as "playful alternative" if it helps), keep in mind that they are generally not falsifiable anyway, and that you can always find a way to interpretate a series of event through one or the other system of belief. If you are scared about leaving the realm of materialism, check for zetetician works, stuff like James Randy or Henri Broch debunking the supernatural. It may allow you to solve some apparent contradictions (plus it's real fun). For kid telepathy, check Momo's post (which is a bit how I see things). In any case, don't think that one worldview destroys the other. Keeping alternatives in mind, and remembering that the reason why they still exist is that they all "make sense" of the surroundings is a sufficiently satisfactory manner, is the best way to keep your sanity AND you respect of people from different background.
I had passed an oral exam on shamanism once, and had presented all the current anthropological angles, analysis, and interpretations of these healing practices and their mechanisms. The examinator told me I had forgotten one possible explanation. I thought a bit, but couldn't see what he meant, I was quite self-assured I had presented them all. But he told me that I forgot to take in consideration that things may be working exacty as described by the natives, with actual entities fetching back stolen souls from parallel worlds. He was right. It is one of the possible explanation. It was not in my list because it's the one that didn't fit my worldview, it just fit the worldview of people I claimed to respect - yet I had completely disqualified their own views (as "blatantly absurd") without even realising it. It was a bit presomptuous of me.
I'm still, deep down, a skeptic. But I don't want to make this mistake anymore.
