This is an issue that deserves further study in terms of national styles or characteristics of thinking. These things are a matter of degree as there have certainly been many individuals in Great Britain and in the United States that show much credulity and lack of attention to methodological rigor. As a student of the history of psychical research I am not interested in showing that some communities produced research that was more valid than others. If we want to use history to understand the things that happened, it would be more productive to try to establish first the existence of different national traditions or styles of thinking. Studies along these lines would allow us to determine more that the quality of their work, it would give us the opportunity to understand the differences psychical research takes in different places and in different times.
Many possible lessons come to mind.
One of them is to realise, as many of our pioneers did, that it is possible to investigate all kinds of phenomena, including those that seem outrageous or ridiculous to us. This was the case with physical mediumship, for example. One can learn much from the attitude of William Crookes, who preferred to study the phenomena empirically instead of following the negative attitude his contemporary scientific colleagues showed to the topic in general. One also learns that opposition to psychical research has not changed much in terms of tactics. The old arguments of George Beard, Joseph Jastrow, and William Carpenter, among others, are still with us.