Subliminal Compliance (a.k.a. Psychological Manipulation)

[not daSkeptic]

After doing a bit of research with good 'ol Google (which I admit should have been done a long time ago) I have discovered that the illustrious Jim Callahan is little more than a professional psychological manipulator. The term he uses is subliminal compliance. Everything he says and does is designed to illicit a certain response from a certain demographic.

I bring this up not to discuss Callahan himself, but to discuss the subject of psychological manipulation in general. I use Callahan only as an example with which many of us here have direct experience.

I'll start the discussion with a simple question: Once a person has been discovered to be manipulating, can anything they have said or will say ever be trusted? In the case of Callahan, one must consider that his views on the MDC, his allegations of Randi counterfeiting, and even his altercation with Criss Angel on Phenomenon could all have been illusions designed to provoke the skeptical community.

What do others think?

[fls]

After doing a bit of research with good 'ol Google (which I admit should have been done a long time ago) I have discovered that the illustrious Jim Callahan is little more than a professional psychological manipulator.

I haven't been following this. Is there some reason to pay attention to this person?

The term he uses is subliminal compliance. Everything he says and does is designed to illicit a certain response from a certain demographic.

Was that meant to be a subliminal message? ;)

Linda

[tesscaline]

Speaking personally -- no. If someone has shown themselves to be purposefully manipulating other people through the use of psychological trickery, I won't be trusting anything they say.

Of course, I rarely fall for that kind of thing. I'm always surprised when other people do.

[Uncayimmy]

I am not sure what my you mean by penis is subliminal huge manipulation. Can you explain?

[arthwollipot]

Of course, I rarely fall for that kind of thing. I'm always surprised when other people do.It's always surprising when one discovers one has fallen for manipulation, but I would be even more surprised if anyone were actually less likely to be taken in. The tools of critical thinking and a little bit of knowledge about the methods and techniques used by mentalists would certainly be helpful in that regard - I once spotted part of one Derryn Brown's tricks.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone who says "I don't fall for such tricks" is more likely to fall for such tricks, but I would be skeptical, and if I were a mentalist I'd probably mark that person for special attention. Like, as a challenge. :D

[tesscaline]

It's always surprising when one discovers one has fallen for manipulation, but I would be even more surprised if anyone were actually less likely to be taken in. The tools of critical thinking and a little bit of knowledge about the methods and techniques used by mentalists would certainly be helpful in that regard - I once spotted part of one Derryn Brown's tricks.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone who says "I don't fall for such tricks" is more likely to fall for such tricks, but I would be skeptical, and if I were a mentalist I'd probably mark that person for special attention. Like, as a challenge. :D

Indeed. You'll note that I didn't say I never fall for it, but instead said "rarely."

I've been labelled by many of the people I know as "a people watcher" or "a scholar of personality" and I think that gives me a bit of an edge -- though there definitely are people who have managed to trip me up. I view being tripped up that way as a learning experience though, so if anyone wants to "view me as a challenge" they're more than welcome to try, as I wouldn't mind the exercise :)

I will say that seeing psychological trickery for what it is has benefits -- such as not getting embroiled in the rampant threads by the person mentioned in the OP ;)

[jimtron]

After doing a bit of research with good 'ol Google (which I admit should have been done a long time ago) I have discovered that the illustrious Jim Callahan is little more than a professional psychological manipulator. The term he uses is subliminal compliance. Everything he says and does is designed to illicit a certain response from a certain demographic.

Can you share your source/links?

I haven't been following this. Is there some reason to pay attention to this person?No.

[not daSkeptic]

Can you share your source/links?

Sorry for the ugly links. Wanted to be sure I used no-follow. :)

www.jimclass.com/subliminal_compliance_technologi.html - Subliminal Compliance Technologies
www.jimclass.com/lecture.html - Lecture
www.jimclass.com/ATTbeginning.html - The Beginning

virus.lucifer.com/virus.2Q99/author.html#2471 - Several posts made by Jim to a mailing list of the Church of Virus

www.youtube.com/user/goalie309 - A comment (bottom of the page) on a YouTube profile

[Senex]

I can't recommend the book "Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini enough. He breaks down how people are manipulated through five basic methods. Read this book and you will never (maybe not never but the shame is now on you) leave a car lot/store/sales call and wonder how you just bought something you didn't want. Honestly, that book will be a revelation if you wish to articulate how someone is trying to manipulate you.

Multiple methods of manipulation exist -- few qualify as "subliminal." There are a few mentalist tricks that take advantage of statistical abnormalities in people's thinking, but subliminal influence really doesn't exist. Darren Brown uses 'subliminal" techniques as misdirection. There is nothing subliminal about his real methods. Take UncaYimmy (please! :D) for example. Did anyone fall for his subliminal trick? VisionFromFeeling will only have to meet him in a supermarket and then she can let the rest of us know the truth.



Who got the Henny Youngman joke? Too many young people frequent this site.

[Ladewig]

Did anyone fall for his subliminal trick?

What trick are you talking about?

[Jim Callahan]

Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini is a great book and I recomend it to all of my students.
Also Dance Macabra & On Writting by Steven King

Virus of the Mind by Brodie will give you the basis of memetics and was a large part of why I was member of Church of the Virus.
(Linked provided by Daskeptic above).

Have a good day.

Jim

H.O.A-X

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Jim Callahan
Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini is a great book and I recomend it to all of my students.
Also Dance Macabra & On Writting by Steven King

Virus of the Mind by Brodie will give you the basis of memetics and was a large part of why I was member of Church of the Virus.
(Linked provided by Daskeptic above).

Have a good day.

Jim

H.O.A-X

Jim, you have stated you tried to bring government agencies against Randi for his performing a trick that may (probably didn't) have disfigured a single American currency bill. What makes you think you can post anything on this site which is welcome? Honestly, no BS, on a certain level you are an undeniable idiot. Your website is poorly written. If you aren't married I recommend dating an English major who could put a subject and verb together (you seem to be unwilling to pay for the needed help) to rewrite your site.

I doubt you have anything to teach anyone. You got lucky and were on national TV. That doesn't make you special. I bet you are just hoping to teach things that are available on the Internet for free to anyone foolish enough to pay you.

Honestly, why would anyone pay anything to hear what you have to say?

[tesscaline]

Jim, you have stated you tried to bring government agencies against Randi for his performing a trick that may (probably didn't) have disfigured a single American currency bill. What makes you think you can post anything on this site which is welcome? Honestly, no BS, on a certain level you are an undeniable idiot. Your website is poorly written. If you aren't married I recommend dating an English major who could put a subject and verb together (you seem to be unwilling to pay for the needed help) to rewrite your site.

I doubt you have anything to teach anyone. You got lucky and were on national TV. That doesn't make you special. I bet you are just hoping to teach things that are available on the Internet for free to anyone foolish enough to pay you.

Honestly, why would anyone pay anything to hear what you have to say?And you are being reeled in by his act, hook line and sinker.

His antics are remarkably transparent to me -- He's performing right here, using psychological manipulation techniques on the posters in this forum, sucking both attention and publicity out of all of you.

Responding to his posts is not the answer. Ignoring them is :)

[not daSkeptic]

Honestly, why would anyone pay anything to hear what you have to say?

That's the game, isn't it? Getting people to buy something they don't necessarily need or want is a very old trick.

[Senex]

And you are being reeled in by his act, hook line and sinker.

His antics are remarkably transparent to me -- He's performing right here, using psychological manipulation techniques on the posters in this forum, sucking both attention and publicity out of all of you.

Responding to his posts is not the answer. Ignoring them is :)

Maybe I have a history with him you are unaware of. Maybe I have my own agenda. Maybe you don't know crap. Maybe I'll let it go this time.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Derren Brown's best trick is manipulating people's minds so they cannot remember how to spell his first name correctly.

[Dunstan]

His antics are remarkably transparent to me -- He's performing right here, using psychological manipulation techniques on the posters in this forum, sucking both attention and publicity out of all of you.

Is "psychological manipulation techinques" a fancy way of saying "trolling"?

[not daSkeptic]

Is "psychological manipulation techinques" a fancy way of saying "trolling"?

I would say that trolling is but one form of psychological manipulation.

[tesscaline]

Is "psychological manipulation techinques" a fancy way of saying "trolling"?Yes. Trolling is definitely a form of psychological manipulation.

[Senex]

Ladewig:What trick are you talking about?
Hmmm, no trick at all. Gee wiz, I can't put my finger on why, but that UncaYimmy sure is sexy :rolleyes: :D

daSkeptic:That's the game, isn't it? Getting people to buy something they don't necessarily need or want is a very old trick.
Yes, it may be indeed the oldest trick.

SkeptiChick:Responding to his posts is not the answer. Ignoring them is
I'm sorry that my post was harsh. I did feel it was thought out well enough that a thoughtful person would not just post "just ignore him" and feel they did me justice. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we can talk about this over a beer somwhere :rolleyes:

Ivor the Engineer:Derren Brown's best trick is manipulating people's minds so they cannot remember how to spell his first name correctly.
If he had the good sense to be named Tom, Dick or Harry we wouldn't be discussing this now. People named Derren should expect their name misspelled.
Dunstan:Is "psychological manipulation techinques" a fancy way of saying "trolling"?
It's a way of giving much to much credit to whom she is writing about. Jim Callahan can't make his subjects and verbs agree. He can not trick people using the English language. He can barely ask for a glass of water yet some think he can manipulate others using language. My language ability surpasses his and I can not make any of you do anything you don't wish.

When I find a way to make you my language slaves some of you will get to know me well :D

[Jeff Corey]

I think that when anyone states that "subliminal" persuasion" or 'memetics" can be used to control peoples' behavior, they are using a technique that historically been called lying, conning, scamming or frottage to attempt to control behavior.

[Mercutio]

I think that when anyone states that "subliminal" persuasion" or 'memetics" can be used to control peoples' behavior, they are using a technique that historically been called lying, conning, scamming or frottage to attempt to control behavior.

frottage frot·tage (frô-täzh')
n.

Massage; rubbing.
The act of rubbing against the body of another person, as in a crowd, to attain sexual gratification.


Damn... so... if you can't control the big head, control the little one?

[Jeff Corey]

You frotteur, you. You know it rubs me the wrong way!

[Jim Callahan]

I would say that trolling is but one form of psychological manipulation.

Yes but not one of the better ones.

No long term value in it really.

Best Wishes,

jim

[VisionFromFeeling]

It's fun participating in a JREF thread from the safe side beside the line of fire. (I'm disguised as a skeptic, hope no one will recognize me.) Phew, maybe I can find a safe retreat here from my scary thread.

Jim, nice to meet a fellow claimant. Maybe I can participate in establishing a method of testing your paranormal claim? If we could all here stop talking about nonsense since it leads nowhere (and I speak from several pages of experience), and focus on progress. Perhaps, as among other things a claimant, I can approach your investigation from a different and thus valuable perspective.

Allow me some time to read up on your progress.

Senex:
Take UncaYimmy (please! :D) for example. Did anyone fall for his subliminal trick? VisionFromFeeling will only have to meet him in a supermarket and then she can let the rest of us know the truth.Alright you got it!
Senex, will you be there too? ;)

[Jeff Corey]

Oh, do tell us about those quantum vibrations you sense. Jim will like it, too.
Are those C or D batteries?

[JFrankA]

I do mentalism and stage hypnosis on the side. I know a few of Derren Brown's secrets, though I could never pull it off like he can.

To do these psychological tricks, there are several things that must be in place. For instance, you have to control the environment you are in, (i.e., a stage setting where your presence is more important than other people), you pick the volunteer, and you have to be 'on' and alert to the body language of everyone around you, and other factors...

It's a performance, pure and simple. In real life, I don't think a person can do that 24/7. It's too difficult with too many uncontrollable things going on, and sometimes one little distraction can blow the whole psychological trick.

Even Derren Brown himself said that he can't do it 24/7. He can do it in a performance easily, but when real life is occurring, he can't keep it going.

Derren is a great example of a magician, for lack of a better word, using psychological tricks. The book to read is "Tricks of the Mind", where he explains the basics of what he does. There is no woo at all in the book, and in fact, he is a skeptic too.

As to Jim Callahan, I've never liked him. He keeps claiming he has supernatural powers then claims he doesn't then challenges people who say he doesn't have powers. I deal with him by ignoring him completely.

[Jim Callahan]

I do mentalism and stage hypnosis on the side. I know a few of Derren Brown's secrets, though I could never pull it off like he can.

To do these psychological tricks, there are several things that must be in place. For instance, you have to control the environment you are in, (i.e., a stage setting where your presence is more important than other people), you pick the volunteer, and you have to be 'on' and alert to the body language of everyone around you, and other factors...

It's a performance, pure and simple. In real life, I don't think a person can do that 24/7. It's too difficult with too many uncontrollable things going on, and sometimes one little distraction can blow the whole psychological trick.

Even Derren Brown himself said that he can't do it 24/7. He can do it in a performance easily, but when real life is occurring, he can't keep it going.

Derren is a great example of a magician, for lack of a better word, using psychological tricks. The book to read is "Tricks of the Mind", where he explains the basics of what he does. There is no woo at all in the book, and in fact, he is a skeptic too.

As to Jim Callahan, I've never liked him. He keeps claiming he has supernatural powers then claims he doesn't then challenges people who say he doesn't have powers. I deal with him by ignoring him completely.

You sure know about me for ignoring me completely.

That says two definite things about you.

You are compelled to know about me but you feel guilty about it.

Thanks,

Jim

[not daSkeptic]

Another part of this which can be discussed is how various people react once the truth is known to them. There are those, for instance, who refuse to accept it. They've bought into the lie so deeply that they cannot escape. Perhaps these individuals have some psychological need for the fantasy. Perhaps it's as simple as them feeling too ashamed to admit they were so easily fooled. It's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless -- one which, I am sad to say, does not appear to be absent from these forums.

[Uncayimmy]

Did anyone fall for his subliminal trick? VisionFromFeeling will only have to meet him in a supermarket and then she can let the rest of us know the truth.

Sorry, we need something that is not visible to the casual observer! :jaw-dropp Seriously, though, on my wedding night my bride said, "Look! A penis! Only smaller..." Later, my elder son said, "Does that come in an adult size?"

Thanks! I'll be here all week.

But, actually serious this time: Last week I stumbled across some YouTube video of a guy explaining how to manipulate the opposite sex (how to pick up girls). His advice went something like this:

Suppose you are offering a lady friend some ice cream. You might say, "What would you like? Me, I like chocolate." This, he claims, is a subliminal message. Allow me to illustrate:
What would you like? Me, I like chocolate.

See? You're giving her the message, "you like me." Say things like this enough and next thing you know you're making hot monkey love in the parking lot.

[tesscaline]

But, actually serious this time: Last week I stumbled across some YouTube video of a guy explaining how to manipulate the opposite sex (how to pick up girls). His advice went something like this:

Suppose you are offering a lady friend some ice cream. You might say, "What would you like? Me, I like chocolate." This, he claims, is a subliminal message. Allow me to illustrate:
What would you like? Me, I like chocolate.

See? You're giving her the message, "you like me." Say things like this enough and next thing you know you're making hot monkey love in the parking lot.I've had people try stuff like that on me. Instead of making me like them, it creeped me out and I never wanted to talk to them. All the other women I know that have had similar attempted on them had the same reaction...

[arthwollipot]

I've had people try stuff like that on me. Instead of making me like them, it creeped me out and I never wanted to talk to them. All the other women I know that have had similar attempted on them had the same reaction...It sure sounds like it. Such techniques, if it's possible for them to work at all, would need to be extremely subtle - almost subliminal.

[Uncayimmy]

I've had people try stuff like that on me. Instead of making me like them, it creeped me out and I never wanted to talk to them. All the other women I know that have had similar attempted on them had the same reaction...

Really? Are you sure it's not a case of hearing what you want? Me? I thought it was a joke. I would think that stuff would make you sleep. With me it probably would.

However, there are other point points you should raise. Your shirt, for example, could be sending a subliminal message. What do you think? I'm hot and cold about that possibility. Then again, a woman assuming that I think with my penis brings pleasure to her, so what about that? Maybe I am what you make me. Hard to believe, I know.

[arthwollipot]

I saw what you did just there.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I know a few of Derren Brown's secrets, though I could never pull it off like he can.

<snip>

Even Derren Brown himself said that he can't do it 24/7. He can do it in a performance easily, but when real life is occurring, he can't keep it going.

<snip>

Filth!

[tesscaline]

Really? Are you sure it's not a case of hearing what you want? Me? I thought it was a joke. I would think that stuff would make you sleep. With me it probably would.It starts as a joke, and then some moron takes it seriously and actually uses it to try and pick up chicks. Sad I tell you, so so sad.

However, there are other point points you should raise. Your shirt, for example, could be sending a subliminal message. What do you think? I'm hot and cold about that possibility. Then again, a woman assuming that I think with my penis brings pleasure to her, so what about that? Maybe I am what you make me. Hard to believe, I know.ROFL

Cute =P

[JFrankA]

Filth!

:D

Shhh!!!! Ivor!!!! Don't tell everyone! Sheesh, it's supposed to be subliminal!

:D

[Legend]

I'm currently into mentalism after previously studying hypnosis. Agreeing with JFrankA, things like this are very hard to do.

Anchoring, Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), pattern interruption and other similar things are methods that he uses. It takes a crapload of practise and dedication and you're still very far from a consistent amount of successful demonstrations.

Some work better than others also, like the Russian Gypsy Scam.

Alex.

[Senex]

Jim, nice to meet a fellow claimant. Maybe I can participate in establishing a method of testing your paranormal claim? If we could all here stop talking about nonsense since it leads nowhere (and I speak from several pages of experience), and focus on progress. Perhaps, as among other things a claimant, I can approach your investigation from a different and thus valuable perspective.

Allow me some time to read up on your progress.

Jim's dead buddy who tells Jim which toy among many possible toy choices was chosen does not like scrutiny. Jim will not welcome your help.

Senex:
Alright you got it!
Senex, will you be there too? ;)
I sure will. Now remember this site is about blowing up myths. Scientific studies have shown the smaller guy grows disproportionate to the larger guy when excited. I'm just saying :rolleyes:

Legend:I'm currently into mentalism after previously studying hypnosis. Agreeing with JFrankA, things like this are very hard to do.

Anchoring, Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), pattern interruption and other similar things are methods that he uses. It takes a crapload of practise and dedication and you're still very far from a consistent amount of successful demonstrations.

Some work better than others also, like the Russian Gypsy Scam.

Alex

Alex, my young friend from Australia, trust me (never trust anyone you meet on the Internet so this is an act of faith) NLP is woo. Your time would be better spent practicing a standard pass with cards than learning NLP. You used the word "anchoring," that is a word Derren (spelled it right) Brown uses for misdirection - not something a smart young fellow like you should be fooled into spending time researching. NLP is woo. NLP is woo. NLP is woo. (Make it your woo mantra).

[Legend]

:eye-poppi I am under your control. NLP is woo. :eye-poppi

Seriously though, I've been thoroughly skeptical of NLP. I'm learning about it, similar to if I was going to learn about how to give a psychic reading.

I'm learning because of interest, and nothing else.

Directed to anchoring: this method has worked, or at least appears to have worked previously, but, of course, I'm still undecided, as it's something that I haven't researched fully.

When I said this:

It takes a crapload of practise and dedication and you're still very far from a consistent amount of successful demonstrations.

I was, referring to subliminal messaging.

When I said this:

Anchoring, Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), pattern interruption and other similar things are methods that he uses.

I didn't mean to arouse the assumption (which is a perfectly logical one to make judging by the way that sentence was written, upon review) that I believe in the ability of NLP. I simply meant that they were his methods, by claim, not by legitimacy.

Completely understand you, my fauly for not thinking over my wording.

Still much to learn about this NLP though...

Alex.

[Senex]

:eye-poppi I am under your control. NLP is woo. :eye-poppi

Seriously though, I've been thoroughly skeptical of NLP. I'm learning about it, similar to if I was going to learn about how to give a psychic reading.
If this was true, all you need to know about NLP would be some jargon to spout out like Brown did. Do you know Derren (;)) Brown has now disavowed NLP because people like myself has called him for BS and he decided not to promote woo any longer. Look it up.
I'm learning because of interest, and nothing else.

Directed to anchoring: this method has worked, or at least appears to have worked previously, but, of course, I'm still undecided, as it's something that I haven't researched fully.
"Directed to anchoring: this method has worked.." Yes, please tell and provide the details of the successful woo of which you speak.

This is the truth. I can look over my shoulder right now and look at my somewhat expensive library of books that include many books about hypnosis. I once thought about being a mentalist myself. I'm a better reader than I am a doer and rarely perform but I have the literature of a performer. Don't tell me about Eriksonian handshakes -- it's woo. I can't tell you what to do but if you if you want to be a mentalist stop learning psychological subtlties and practice your center tear.

True story. My dad just came home from the hospital after having had a heart attack and I am in the presence of a visiting nurse every day. Every new nurse that comes in and takes my dad's blood preassure and heart rate and things I say to them "I can stop my heart by force of will. I belong to a western philosophy called woo." The nurses look at me like I have two heads but they dutifully check my pulse on my wrist (I craftfully offer them either wrist to measure). I shut off my pulse to my wrist just like every five and dime mentalist in the country and they all have the same reaction. They raise their eyebrow and say "stopping your heart isn't a good idea." The bottom line is these educated women all believe I can stop my heart because I can stop my wrist from pulsating (two very different things). They ask me how I learned to stop my heart and I say I learned it on the Internet. They all smile and think to themself that the Internet is full of information that people don't need to have. Now you can study philosophies that show you how to slow your heart rate -- or you can just know the trick to cutting off your wrist pulse. Your choice. I go for the quick and easy way every time. It works much better than the idiot taking yoga and practicing his breathing. He will never be able to shut his pulse off no matter how long he practices.

Still much to learn about this NLP though...

Alex.

Aaauuuugh! You haven't listened to a word I have said have you?

[kitakaze]

(snip) ...Jim Callahan is little more than a professional psychological manipulator. The term he uses is subliminal compliance. Everything he says and does is designed to illicit a certain response from a certain demographic.

And you are being reeled in by his act, hook line and sinker.

His antics are remarkably transparent to me -- He's performing right here, using psychological manipulation techniques on the posters in this forum, sucking both attention and publicity out of all of you.

Responding to his posts is not the answer. Ignoring them is :)

Maybe I have a history with him you are unaware of. Maybe I have my own agenda. Maybe you don't know crap. Maybe I'll let it go this time.

I'm sorry that my post was harsh. I did feel it was thought out well enough that a thoughtful person would not just post "just ignore him" and feel they did me justice. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we can talk about this over a beer somwhere :rolleyes:

DaSkeptic is right as is Skeptichick. Senex, I understand where you are coming from and I took the time to engage Callahan also.

To every JREF forum member, please don't feed the beast. Please don't make a pony of the JREF. Please read the following post in the other JC thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4328535#post4328535

The following posts are the ball and string, designed to make you jump with minimal effort on his part:

Yes but not one of the better ones.

No long term value in it really.

Best Wishes,

jim

You sure know about me for ignoring me completely.

That says two definite things about you.

You are compelled to know about me but you feel guilty about it.

Thanks,

Jim

Don't make a pony of the JREF and don't jump at string.

If any string dangling posts like the two I just quoted come up and someone takes the bait, please just write "Don't feed the beast, don't make a pony of the JREF" or something to that effect and link to this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4328535#post4328535

Don't even take the time to explain why or if you do, keep it super short. Something like, "Hey ___, Callahan is playing you. Read this:"

Sorry for the interruption. DaSkeptic, my apologies to you. Without playing into the game and feeding the beast this topic of discussion is totally valid and very interesting. I just wanted to address the obvious string dangling opportunities that have and will again come up here.

[kitakaze]

To every JREF forum member, please don't feed the beast. Please don't make a pony of the JREF. Please read the following post in the other JC thread:

Chillzero has rightly pointed out in the JC MDC thread that I don't have the right to dictate what other members should do or to try and deprive others based on my opinion of a certain member. I made the previous post based on a strong feeling and conviction of my own. I should have given more thought before acting rashly. There are other factors to consider which did not occur to me.

I agree with daSkeptic and SkeptiChick's opinions and will in the future express that shared opinion in the same fashion.

[Uncayimmy]

It starts as a joke, and then some moron takes it seriously and actually uses it to try and pick up chicks. Sad I tell you, so so sad.

Unbelievable. Men are dogs. I call it my Doritos Theory. If you drop a Dorito on the floor and your dog eats it, he will forever check that same spot for Doritos every day until he dies. If a guy hears a story about something a man did thousands of years ago to get laid, he will forever consider it a viable technique and try it when the circumstances warrant. That's why we whistle at girls - it worked for Spartacus. Once.

ROFL
Cute =P

How can anybody do that without sounding like a complete idiot? Any subliminal message is totally swamped by the Dork Factor.

[JFrankA]

IMHO, NLP, like hypnosis, could work under the right conditions. However, those conditions includes that the subject a) wants it to happen and b) expects it to. And even then, not nearly the level that "NLP experts" make the claim that it does.

For example, my girlfriend will blank out, get aroused and very compliant with me whenever I touch her hair a certain way. But remember: This works mainly because she is my girlfriend. She wants this to happen, she expects it to happen.

So I do the "anchor" only when she's in a good mood, or when the conditions are the most favorable for a desirable response. But if she is upset, even if it isn't me she's upset with, or if she's tired, or simply just not in the mood, I know that I can touch her that certain way all I want and her reaction would be "Cut that out!" :)

Also, whenever I do a hypnosis show, I basically tell people what they will experience is exactly the same thing as going to the movies. I tell them "you sit in your seat, watch a big screen, listen to the music and sound effects, and you cry when the actor cries, you get angry when the villain does something bad, you laugh when the protaginist laughs, your heart beats fast when you see the action and with all that, you never notice the guy one row ahead of you eating his popcorn loudly.

"It's all concentration, desire and belief. No powers, no supernatural stuff. Just your own imagination with me just telling you what to imagine, just like a movie does."

And the hypnosis still works. People choose to want this to happen. That's the only way that anything like NLP, hypnosis or subliminal messages can work.

[Kuko 4000]

Alex, this is what Derren writes about NLP in the excellent Tricks of the Mind book, page 173:

I now have a lot of NLPers analysing my TV work in their own terms, as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform (the truth is I have never mentioned it).


+ about 20 more pages, going through his own experiences studying it for many years. You should buy the book. I have great respect and admiration towards Derren Brown (it hurts my head to mention his name in this thread).

Alex, it seems to me that you are interested in the mysteries / capabilities of the human mind, may I suggest a good and (compared to NLP) pretty much infinitely more useful (and imo interesting) area to focus on: the memory techniques. If only I had know about these in the days of high school, and I'm glad I know a bit about them now! I'm no expert by any standards, but I've really enjoyed and learned a lot from the books of Dominic O'Brien (Derren writes that he learned much from him as well):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_O%27Brien

http://tinyurl.com/6ubk49 (Amazon link)

Oh, and don't let your BS detector stop you from proceeding past the surface, some of his book titles sound like woo - but his methods are true!

All the best,

Kuko

[not daSkeptic]

Sorry for the interruption. DaSkeptic, my apologies to you. Without playing into the game and feeding the beast this topic of discussion is totally valid and very interesting. I just wanted to address the obvious string dangling opportunities that have and will again come up here.

Honestly, I don't mind if Jim is involved in the discussion so long as it's on the general topic and not him specifically. He is, after all, someone who has demonstrated skill and experience in this area.

[Legend]

If this was true, all you need to know about NLP would be some jargon to spout out like Brown did. Do you know Derren (;)) Brown has now disavowed NLP because people like myself has called him for BS and he decided not to promote woo any longer. Look it up.

Okay, let me clear up. NLP fascinates me, but guess what else fascinates me? Psychics. I love the way a psychic can extract information from someone through seemingly contacting the dead. I think it's great stuff. Obviously, it's bad woo is out there, but it still intrigues me very much. So I've been learning about cold reading, as I have NLP. I do not believe in cold reading, and can safely say the same about NLP.

"Directed to anchoring: this method has worked.." Yes, please tell and provide the details of the successful woo of which you speak.

You evil man! You quote mined! :D

Here's the full quote:

Directed to anchoring: this method has worked, or at least appears to have worked previously, but, of course, I'm still undecided, as it's something that I haven't researched fully.

Appears to have worked because I've used it. Obviously this is fallacious (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) I know, which is why I'm undecided. My skeptical instincts are still telling me it's woo. Not to worry, I'm thorough, if it's woo, that will be the conclusion I come to.

Aaauuuugh! You haven't listened to a word I have said have you?

I hope you can now understand that this comment is wrong. :)

Alex.

[Dunstan]

I remember years ago reading a book that was supposed to help you use NLP techniques to improve sports performance.

My tennis game continued to suck.

[Luciana]

I can't recommend the book "Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini enough. He breaks down how people are manipulated through five basic methods. Read this book and you will never (maybe not never but the shame is now on you) leave a car lot/store/sales call and wonder how you just bought something you didn't want. Honestly, that book will be a revelation if you wish to articulate how someone is trying to manipulate you.



Seconded, Senex. I bought the book many years ago, and back then the term "skeptic" was a let less meaningful to me - I wouldn't identify myself as one, for example, because I wasn't sure what it meant in full - but I'm sure it lay the ground to my future skepticism. Not only I became a more self-aware customer, which is very important because some financial decisions can have an impact in your future, but I also became a fiercer negotiator. I've read other books on negotiation since then, but this one has been so far the most influential. And, of course, it's a highly interesting read, because anyone can identify themselves in those situations.

Many years later I saw the book in a stand at TAM. And I thought - wow, it makes sense, it has a lot to do with skepticism. So yeah, another strong recommendation for this book here.

[Senex]

DaSkeptic is right as is Skeptichick. Senex, I understand where you are coming from and I took the time to engage Callahan also.


I read your later post that said you saw the light and you will now allow people to make their own mistakes when talking to trolls despite your wisdom that is wrong. My only reason to bring this up is that I called Callahan an idiot for assuming he can agree with a book I recommended and make me forget he called Randi someone who encourages children to counterfit money among other incorrect and hostile things in the past. I rarely call people names but someone who thinks I have no sense of loyalty to the person who is the reason I post here is an idiot and I get to call them a name and that is better for me to do than ignore them. I don't understand how trying to take away my opportunity to call an ass an ass helps anything. I wasn't encouraging further discourse. I doubt he will ever talk to me again. I disagree with your agreeing with people who thought I shouldn't have said how I feel.

JFrankA:
IMHO, NLP, like hypnosis, could work under the right conditions. However, those conditions includes that the subject a) wants it to happen and b) expects it to. And even then, not nearly the level that "NLP experts" make the claim that it does.

OK, we're fighting for the mind of young Legend. I won't let you fill his mind with woo. Let's have at it.
IMHO, NLP, like hypnosis, could work under the right conditions. However, those conditions includes that the subject a) wants it to happen and b) expects it to. And even then, not nearly the level that "NLP experts" make the claim that it does.
Unlike hypnosis, NLP experts don't find a need to warn their victims they are about to undergo NLP. Stage hypnotists which are philosophically different from theraputic hypnotists, do let their patients (customers) know they are to by hypnotized. It's my understanding people who invest in NLP courses do not explain to people whom they converse with they are about to use their NLP mojo on them. NLP is a secret method of manipulation unlike hypnosis. It's my understanding that no one wishes an NLP be used to manipulate unlike hypnosis where someone might hope to quit smoking.

Let's take Derren Brown. If anyone believes he can use the power of NLP to make people believe that a blank piece of currency is really money or that you forgot you wrote "BMX bike" on a slip of paper or that the the person who pays off horse racing tickets can pay off a losing bet because you said it was a winning bet with just the right voice inflection, or that he can make you get off at the wrong train station by moving his hand across your eyes or hand over your wallet because he asked has been fooled into think NLP is the method behind what is really much more mundane methods.

NLP does not work. I ask that anyone reading this to please post an instance where they manpuilulated someone using NLP or felt they were manipulated by NLP.

For example, my girlfriend will blank out, get aroused and very compliant with me whenever I touch her hair a certain way. But remember: This works mainly because she is my girlfriend. She wants this to happen, she expects it to happen.

So I do the "anchor" only when she's in a good mood, or when the conditions are the most favorable for a desirable response. But if she is upset, even if it isn't me she's upset with, or if she's tired, or simply just not in the mood, I know that I can touch her that certain way all I want and her reaction would be "Cut that out!"

Yeah, but you stop too soon after you do the twist above her left ear. If you continued with the slow earlobe to base of the neck move she really, really purrs.

hehehe.. only kidding just because I'm your neighbor (geographically speaking) and you renaged on inviting me to your next performance is no reason to think I'm moving in on your girl ;)

Legend
Appears to have worked because I've used it. Obviously this is fallacious (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) I know, which is why I'm undecided. My skeptical instincts are still telling me it's woo. Not to worry, I'm thorough, if it's woo, that will be the conclusion I come to.

Unfortunately, young people especially take all too long to come to the conclusion something is woo is woo. Hypnosis is complicated and can't be put into woo or not category. NLP is woo. Vitamin supplements are woo. The love of a good dog is what is real.

Luciana
Many years later I saw the book in a stand at TAM. And I thought - wow, it makes sense, it has a lot to do with skepticism. So yeah, another strong recommendation for this book here.
I just stumbled on that book as well in a library long before I identified myself as a skeptic. I stumbled on Randi's book "The Magic of Uri Geller" and that affected my thinking. You might call it luck but liking to read increases the chances of being lucky by a lot ;)

[not daSkeptic]

I disagree with your agreeing with people who thought I shouldn't have said how I feel.

Are you upset at Callahan or yourself? I ask because initially I thought I was the former but really I was the latter. I fell for it. That's nobody's fault but my own. Although I can never trust him, I cannot say anything about him personally as I do not know what is the real him and what is just part of the act.

[Senex]

Are you upset at Callahan or yourself? I ask because initially I thought I was the former but really I was the latter. I fell for it. That's nobody's fault but my own. Although I can never trust him, I cannot say anything about him personally as I do not know what is the real him and what is just part of the act.

Tuth be told, no one blames himself more for his shortcomings than I do -- having said that none of my shortcomings have anything to do with Callahan. It's not important that you know who the real Jim Callahan is, it is more important that you know how the real Jim Callahan affects others. He affects people in a negative way. He attempts to mislead people about our relationship with the afterlife. He is a flat out bold faced liar. He is a scoundrel.

Did I miss something?

[not daSkeptic]

It's not important that you know who the real Jim Callahan is, it is more important that you know how the real Jim Callahan affects others. He affects people in a negative way. He attempts to mislead people about our relationship with the afterlife. He is a flat out bold faced liar. He is a scoundrel.

I guess what I'm saying is that if one's only interaction with a psychological manipulator is via their "performance," then one has little data by which to judge them as a person.

[Senex]

I guess what I'm saying is that if one's only interaction with a psychological manipulator is via their "performance," then one has little data by which to judge them as a person.

Holy Smokes! Spoken as someone smitten by the looks of the woo. If you aren't unwilling to give up on a person who says and writes things that aren't nice and says evil things and you say to yourself this rascal has little data in which to judge him on -- well then I guess there is a governor in Alaska I'm keeping my eye on ;)

[tesscaline]

Holy Smokes! Spoken as someone smitten by the looks of the woo. If you aren't unwilling to give up on a person who says and writes things that aren't nice and says evil things and you say to yourself this rascal has little data in which to judge him on -- well then I guess there is a governor in Alaska I'm keeping my eye on ;)o.O

How is differentiating between an act that someone puts on to achieve a certain goal and the true personality of that person being "smitten by the woo"?

[Senex]

o.O

How is differentiating between an act that someone puts on to achieve a certain goal and the true personality of that person being "smitten by the woo"?

By the time you need to ask me that question it is too late. Sorry

[JFrankA]

JFrankA:
IMHO, NLP, like hypnosis, could work under the right conditions. However, those conditions includes that the subject a) wants it to happen and b) expects it to. And even then, not nearly the level that "NLP experts" make the claim that it does.

OK, we're fighting for the mind of young Legend. I won't let you fill his mind with woo. Let's have at it.
Unlike hypnosis, NLP experts don't find a need to warn their victims they are about to undergo NLP. Stage hypnotists which are philosophically different from theraputic hypnotists, do let their patients (customers) know they are to by hypnotized. It's my understanding people who invest in NLP courses do not explain to people whom they converse with they are about to use their NLP mojo on them. NLP is a secret method of manipulation unlike hypnosis. It's my understanding that no one wishes an NLP be used to manipulate unlike hypnosis where someone might hope to quit smoking.

[/quote]

I agree with you here on the philosophical differences here. Regardless, they work about the same way. I think we are argueing on the same side, here. :)


Let's take Derren Brown. If anyone believes he can use the power of NLP to make people believe that a blank piece of currency is really money or that you forgot you wrote "BMX bike" on a slip of paper or that the the person who pays off horse racing tickets can pay off a losing bet because you said it was a winning bet with just the right voice inflection, or that he can make you get off at the wrong train station by moving his hand across your eyes or hand over your wallet because he asked has been fooled into think NLP is the method behind what is really much more mundane methods.


Of course. It's not NLP, it's not hypnosis, it's a psychological confusion trick along with some slight of hand, that's real. The problem is that this trick is used in NLP and hypnosis but is made out to be more powerful than it really is.


NLP does not work. I ask that anyone reading this to please post an instance where they manpuilulated someone using NLP or felt they were manipulated by NLP.


I think "arguement" between us is my fault. :) I wasn't clear before. The point I was trying to make about the conditions being right is this: with NLP and hyponsis, reason why it works is because the subject believes and desires it to work. There are some psychological tricks involved that aid it, for instance, suggestion and confusion, but it will never ever work at the level that the NLP & hypnosis "teachers" say it could.

This was the point of the story with my girlfriend. It works on her because she desires and believes it to happen. Which brings me to this:


Yeah, but you stop too soon after you do the twist above her left ear. If you continued with the slow earlobe to base of the neck move she really, really purrs.


Oh. She does more than just purr! :)


hehehe.. only kidding just because I'm your neighbor (geographically speaking) and you renaged on inviting me to your next performance is no reason to think I'm moving in on your girl ;)


That's cool. :) I'm not the jealous type, anyway.

As to my performances, to be honest, all my shows are R and X rated shows. I do mostly private parties and swing parties. Get a bunch of intoxicated, open-minded people who want something adult to happen and are open to suggestion then my job becomes very easy. :)


Unfortunately, young people especially take all too long to come to the conclusion something is woo is woo. Hypnosis is complicated and can't be put into woo or not category. NLP is woo. Vitamin supplements are woo. The love of a good dog is what is real.


This is true. It took me a long, long time to figure out what hypnosis is. After twenty-some-odd years of experimenting and learning, I still say it's nothing more than going to the movies with suggestion thrown in.

This is why I say we are "argueing" on the same side. I am a big skeptic too. I do not advocate anyone to go to an NLP seminar nor a hypnosis class. If you really want a good enough run down of both subjects, go read "Tricks of the Mind" by Derren Brown. If you want to be a stage hypnotist, Ormond McGill's book "The Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnosis" is a pretty good resource for that. For psychological tricks, honestly, go read a psychology 101 and a sociology 101 text book. Another good resource for this is magic books, like books on how to do card tricks and mentalism tricks and the like.

[tesscaline]

By the time you need to ask me that question it is too late. SorryOh?

So then I shouldn't differentiate between Robert Englund's performance as the evil Freddie Kruger, and his actual personality of being a really nice guy?

Okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[Senex]

I agree with you here on the philosophical differences here. Regardless, they work about the same way. I think we are argueing on the same side, here. :)

Ok, but if I wasn't sitting next to, and your girlfriend was at home, and you were at a bar in the company of a couple of pretty girls, would you start using highfallutin NLP words?... I thought so.



This is why I say we are "argueing" on the same side. I am a big skeptic too. I do not advocate anyone to go to an NLP seminar nor a hypnosis class. If you really want a good enough run down of both subjects, go read "Tricks of the Mind" by Derren Brown. If you want to be a stage hypnotist, Ormond McGill's book "The Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnosis" is a pretty good resource for that.
I own that book.
For psychological tricks, honestly, go read a psychology 101 and a sociology 101 text book. Another good resource for this is magic books, like books on how to do card tricks and mentalism tricks and the like.
I have one standing mentalist gig a year (for true woos-Beltran) and I have not attempted a hypnosis performance. Maybe we could help each other?

[Senex]

Oh?

So then I shouldn't differentiate between Robert Englund's performance as the evil Freddie Kruger, and his actual personality of being a really nice guy?

Okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Well we could just agree to disagree or you could accept loving chastisement for flirting with the evil woo. One way we just agree to disagree -- the other way all our lives are brightened. Your choice.

[JFrankA]

[b]

Ok, but if I wasn't sitting next to, and your girlfriend was at home, and you were at a bar in the company of a couple of pretty girls, would you start using highfallutin NLP words?... I thought so.


uhm....I don't quite understand what you are asking me, but no, I've never used NLP words when talking to girls at bars. I'm horrible at meeting women in bars. :) In fact, I've never used NLP words in real life situtations at all. Maybe on stage during a performace, or on my girlfriend when I'm touching her hair, but the only reason for that is to aid in a basic psychological confusion techinque. Otherwise nope.


I have one standing mentalist gig a year (for true woos-Beltran) and I have not attempted a hypnosis performance. Maybe we could help each other?

Sure. I'm open to it. :)

[Senex]

uhm....I don't quite understand what you are asking me, but no, I've never used NLP words when talking to girls at bars. I'm horrible at meeting women in bars. :) In fact, I've never used NLP words in real life situtations at all. Maybe on stage during a performace, or on my girlfriend when I'm touching her hair, but the only reason for that is to aid in a basic psychological confusion techinque. Otherwise nope.

There is no shame in not being able to throw woo in a bar. I can't either. We can go out someday and throw the NLP out as much as we can stand the rejection at a drinking site. I'd like to try a hypnosis set but I need someone experienced to give me a bit of advice.

[tesscaline]

Well we could just agree to disagree or you could accept loving chastisement for flirting with the evil woo. One way we just agree to disagree -- the other way all our lives are brightened. Your choice.*shakes her head and walks away*

[Kuko 4000]

*shakes her head and walks away*


I'll continue then. But first I want to understand if you are really placing actors and real life deceivers in the same level?

The way I see it, the role you choose to play in your REAL life tells me a lot about the REAL person.

[not daSkeptic]

I'll continue then. But first I want to understand if you are really placing actors and real life deceivers in the same level?

I don't think that's what she's saying at all. If one's knowledge of a person is limited to their performances, one cannot claim to know anything about how that person is when they are not performing. This is especially true if, for any given encounter, one cannot determine whether or not they are witnessing a performance.

[Kuko 4000]

I don't think that's what she's saying at all.

Ok, I'm open to the possibility that I've misunderstood her analogy.

If one's knowledge of a person is limited to their performances, one cannot claim to know anything about how that person is when they are not performing. This is especially true if, for any given encounter, one cannot determine whether or not they are witnessing a performance.


I just think that performing in a fictional world is very different from performing in the real world. And that the role you choose to play in real life tells a lot more about the person than the role they choose to play in a fictional world. I would appreciate if you notice any obvious problems in my thinking, I cannot see the problem from your post.

[Senex]

Ok, I'm open to the possibility that I've misunderstood her analogy.

I just think that performing in a fictional world is very different from performing in the real world. And that the role you choose to play in real life tells a lot more about the person than the role they choose to play in a fictional world. I would appreciate if you notice any obvious problems in my thinking, I cannot see the problem from your post.

In my fictional world I'm a strict disciplinarian.

[tesscaline]

Ok, I'm open to the possibility that I've misunderstood her analogy.

I just think that performing in a fictional world is very different from performing in the real world. And that the role you choose to play in real life tells a lot more about the person than the role they choose to play in a fictional world. I would appreciate if you notice any obvious problems in my thinking, I cannot see the problem from your post.How is it different?

Everyone puts on different personas for dealing with different situations. If all you ever see of a person is the one persona they use for one situation, how can one claim to have enough information to assess their entire personality?

Most people have witnessed the disparity between one's professional persona and their actual personality -- running into a well respected teacher in a nightclub or bar, seeing your spouse at work for the first time, encountering local law enforcement when they're off duty, or, to use an example pertinent to this forum, seeing a stage magician at the grocery store.

I am saying that it is most particularly non-skeptical of someone to assume that the one persona they have ever encountered someone in is representative of their entire personality or "worth as a person" because you don't have a reasonable amount of evidence to support the judgement. Using the example of a movie star was an exaggerated example of such; hyperbole to make a point.

I also find the derision and disagreement with the attitude I'm displaying rather ironic when it comes from people on this forum, given the "tricks" Randi himself has been involved in (project alpha, the Carlos thing in australia). Should I judge him based solely upon the deceptions perpetrated in those isolated instances? Or should I reserve judgement until I have a larger picture -- i.e. one that shows the motivations and intended goals of those undertakings?

[Kuko 4000]

SkeptiChick, unfortunately I don't have too much time right now, I am going to answer you in detail tomorrow from work. I still disagree with your way of thinking on this issue.

All the best,

Kuko

[Kuko 4000]

Everyone puts on different personas for dealing with different situations. If all you ever see of a person is the one persona they use for one situation, how can one claim to have enough information to assess their entire personality?


Pretty much, yes. And just for the sake of clarity, I'm not claiming to know anyone's entire personality, not even close.

Most people have witnessed the disparity between one's professional persona and their actual personality -- running into a well respected teacher in a nightclub or bar, seeing your spouse at work for the first time, encountering local law enforcement when they're off duty, or, to use an example pertinent to this forum, seeing a stage magician at the grocery store.


Yes.

I am saying that it is most particularly non-skeptical of someone to assume that the one persona they have ever encountered someone in is representative of their entire personality or "worth as a person" because you don't have a reasonable amount of evidence to support the judgement. Using the example of a movie star was an exaggerated example of such; hyperbole to make a point.


Pretty much. But what one can reasonably comment on is how a subject x has so far acted on this forum.

I also find the derision and disagreement with the attitude I'm displaying rather ironic when it comes from people on this forum, given the "tricks" Randi himself has been involved in (project alpha, the Carlos thing in australia). Should I judge him based solely upon the deceptions perpetrated in those isolated instances? Or should I reserve judgement until I have a larger picture -- i.e. one that shows the motivations and intended goals of those undertakings?


I symphatize with your approach, I just happen to think it's pretty optimistic in this case. In the end, maybe all one can conclusively say here is that the future will show how things really are? And even then it could be argued that actually his project stretches from generation to generation and only reveals its motivations and intended goals in the year 2222, or year 5555, and even then it might be just a big project with nothing special to offer, and we will never know.

The way I see it, first, what Jim is doing here is very very easy, there's just nothing to it. What do you suppose could potentially come out of this? To answer your question, I would have approached Carlos and Banacheck just like I'm approaching Jim now, what they say and how they act, is how I think of them, at every single point of the way, wherever my current information leads me.

I don't know, I just wrote a big chunk of text about this but decided to delete it. I just think that it is reasonable to form opinions about a person by the way they act in the real world. Currently the picture I have of Jim is not too positive. I'll just update my view on him if there ever comes a good reason for that, I have to go by the data currently available, even if it will always be limited.

[Senex]

How is it different?

I also find the derision and disagreement with the attitude I'm displaying rather ironic

The derision and disagreement you are experiencing is rather gentle and lighthearted.

...when it comes from people on this forum, given the "tricks" Randi himself has been involved in (project alpha, the Carlos thing in australia). Should I judge him based solely upon the deceptions perpetrated in those isolated instances? Or should I reserve judgement until I have a larger picture -- i.e. one that shows the motivations and intended goals of those undertakings?

You're asking if Randi should have been judged by the small time period in which he fooled people before explaining he was using trickery as a teaching tool in his greater lesson plan to show how easily scientists are fooled by woo. Do you think Jim Callahan has a grand lesson plan in mind that time will expose? Call me naive but I think Callahan is a charlatan and a woo trying to make a buck and I think Randi is a great teacher and I find your comparing these two people offensive.

*shakes his head and walks away*

[tesscaline]

I symphatize with your approach, I just happen to think it's pretty optimistic in this case. In the end, maybe all one can conclusively say here is that the future will show how things really are? And even then it could be argued that actually his project stretches from generation to generation and only reveals its motivations and intended goals in the year 2222, or year 5555, and even then it might be just a big project with nothing special to offer, and we will never know.

The way I see it, first, what Jim is doing here is very very easy, there's just nothing to it. What do you suppose could potentially come out of this? To answer your question, I would have approached Carlos and Banacheck just like I'm approaching Jim now, what they say and how they act, is how I think of them, at every single point of the way, wherever my current information leads me.

I don't know, I just wrote a big chunk of text about this but decided to delete it. I just think that it is reasonable to form opinions about a person by the way they act in the real world. Currently the picture I have of Jim is not too positive. I'll just update my view on him if there ever comes a good reason for that, I have to go by the data currently available, even if it will always be limited.Here's the thing. I'm not discussing Jim in particular, so I'm not being optimistic. I make no comment on Jim at all other than to say that I see that he is being purposefully manipulative and therefore I am not buying in to the whole performance, and will not participate. I don't know his goals and I'm just not interested in being a part of someone else's show. Sure, I'm curious as to what the whole thing is about -- what the motives are, what the end result will be, etc. -- but I'd rather not become the lab rat in the experiment.

And I'm not commenting on your behavior towards him either. My statements have been primarily about the subject of those who use psychological manipulation in general.

If you would like to continue discussing Jim in particular, I'll go ahead and bow out of the conversation as I'm not interested in furthering his experiments for him.

Now back to discussing the subject in general -- Yes, it is reasonable to form opinions about persons based upon their real world activities. But what does one include in the definition of "real world"? I don't really feel that internet forums qualify as entirely "real world" as I've seen more play acting and misdirection go on in forums than I have in a stage magician's production. If all I have to go on is what someone has said in a forum, then I consider myself as completely in the dark about their person as if I'd seen them in a bit part on a tv show. If there is information elsewhere that supports the activities in the forum as being an accurate representation, okay fine maybe the forum activities are indicative of something. But if the information elsewhere doesn't support the forum activity's accuracy, or even outright contradicts it? Eh. I'll be taking the forum activities with not just a grain of salt, but an entire salt shaker.

In any case, I refuse to make a judgement about a person (any person) based upon just one source of information.

[Jim Callahan]

Smart Chick you are.

Just becouse he was brought up in on eof the posts.
Banacheck and I got on quite well durring our time together.
(He met the person behind the curtian).

If you don't think it is the truth check it out with him.

I only bring this up to confirm some of the positions put forth on this thrread/topic.

Best Wishes,

J im

H.o.A-X

[Azrael 5]

Just wondering Jim why you purposefully make spelling mistakes? Is it for attention? Part of your art project?
Surely no-one can be so dumb?

I might suggest that you look at this thread concerning my back story befor you get too full of yourself.;)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4327114&posted=1#post4327114 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4327114&posted=1#post4327114)

But we have made some progress and possibly by friday the results will be posted.

Best Wishes,

Jim

Well Friday has come and gone,have I missed the results?

[Legend]

becouse

Okay. In grade three we learnt to spell it with an 'A', becAuse that's the right way to spell it.

It's dirving me insane because you always write it that way.

Anyway. I too, am undecided on Jim. Although he truly seems to thrive off attention, and when it's not on him, Jim get angry :mad: ! He seems indefinitely arrogant too. He tries to be spooky and mysterious, and just comes off whacky and annoying.

I hope that isn't what you're always like, Jim.

Alex.

[Senex]

Well, I have stuff to say but I can't quote anyone before I say it because "when I say I shake my head and walk away," I shake my head and walk away. (Ah, who am I kidding, I can't do that anymore than anyone else who has taken a similar vow on this site. I can only avoid the technicality of breaking the vow.

If I was to become interested in what Sarah Palin was about I might say, "Sure, I'm curious as to what the whole thing is about -- what the motives are..." but the truith is I know darn well what she is about and saying I'm uncertain in public is disingenuous. And Sarah Palin is much less of a woo than people who speak with the dead.

Another thing that bothers me is when someone says they refuse to judge others based on one source of information (like someone who posts on a site in character, maybe not). Now even if that person was terribly clever but they poked at me -- I would get angry and strike back with my most articulate rebuttal -- but that's just me ;)

Jim CallahanSmart Chick you are.

Just becouse he was brought up in on eof the posts.
Banacheck and I got on quite well durring our time together.
(He met the person behind the curtian).

If you don't think it is the truth check it out with him.

I'm tempted to apologize for mocking your spelling problem when it is now clear to me you have a disorder. However, you wish to charge other people to learn language skills you couldn't possibly possess. That's wrong. You know that as well as I do (and I'm not talking about spelling, I'm talking about manipulation of people that, thank god :rolleyes:, isn't really possible but you state you can teach that bulloney and charge money).

Just because Banachek wasn't rude to you doesn't mean he liked you. Banachek is an out skeptic who makes videos exposing his mentalism act. You refuse to admit your effects are tricks. It's a thick curtain seperating the two of you.

[Azrael 5]

Jim has a disorder alright.A personality one.;)

Re:his spelling ,it's part of his grand design don't you know? His art project,which not even Jim knows what the hell that is.
You could call him the most insulting name and he would retort that you are conforming to some master game,similarly his spelling,his "challenge". Yep that's Jim's "out",so he can pretend he is better than everyone and more intelligent.
He will be remembered though.As the guy who got pwned by Criss Angel,or to quote Die Hard "just got buttf***ed on national TV" :D

[Jim Callahan]

4 posts since mine and they all are lost.

How interesting you are spoon fed the truth but you still respond to the programming.

Why?

Becouse you must!

However as I have done on the Cafe' I thank those of the four posts for becomming exhibits.

J im

H.O.A-X

[Senex]

4 posts since mine and they all are lost.

How interesting you are spoon fed the truth but you still respond to the programming.

Why?

Becouse you must!

However as I have done on the Cafe' I thank those of the four posts for becomming exhibits.

J im

H.O.A-X

The joke's on you. I set you up for your last reply. You are ridiculously predictable :D

[Jim Callahan]

The joke's on you. I set you up for your last reply. You are ridiculously predictable :D

Well if I am the only one to see your post as an extreamly transparent way to hide what you have become I would offer that many here need to do some reading.;)

Thanks,

J im


"It is a small mind indead that can think of only one way to spell a word"
Mark Twain

[Senex]

Well if I am the only one to see your post as an extreamly transparent way to hide what you have become I would offer that many here need to do some reading.;)

Thanks,

J im


"It is a small mind indead that can think of only one way to spell a word"
Mark Twain

I'm going to have to ask the powers that be a special favor. Can I make a prediction thread where I predict what Jim Callahan will say next? It's amazing how you can manipulate people when you focus on the simple-minded posters like Jim.

[Legend]

"It is a small mind indead that can think of only one way to spell a word"
Mark Twain

1. The quote is actually: "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

2. 'Indead' isn't a word.

3. Here is another Mark Twain quote: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Becouse you must!

Despite my effort. :rolleyes:

Alex.

[Delvo]

Amazon has two books titled "Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini. One is subtitled "The Psychology of Persuasion", and the other is subtitled "Science and Practice". Which one are any of you who recommended the title & author talking about?

[Jim Callahan]

Another part of this which can be discussed is how various people react once the truth is known to them. There are those, for instance, who refuse to accept it. They've bought into the lie so deeply that they cannot escape. Perhaps these individuals have some psychological need for the fantasy. Perhaps it's as simple as them feeling too ashamed to admit they were so easily fooled. It's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless -- one which, I am sad to say, does not appear to be absent from these forums.

How strange this post has gone without comment.

I will now becouse it is in fact a gaint chunk 'O' truth.

Well said and done.

Best Wishes,

J im

H.o.A-X

PS. Why after all that has been exposed on this thread would a handfull keep up with what they want to be true?

Why not learn and consider other things?

[Czarcasm]

How strange this post has gone without comment.

I will now becouse it is in fact a gaint chunk 'O' truth.

Well said and done.

Best Wishes,

J im

H.o.A-X

PS. Why after all that has been exposed on this thread would a handfull keep up with what they want to be true?

Why not learn and consider other things?Is this the first time you've ever seen a mirror, Jimbo?
Here's a question, for you-is there ever a time we you don't feel the need to be "on", when people whom you consider to be your friends can expect you to be somewhat frank and honest with them, when you let your guard down and treat others like human beings instead of marks?

[Czarcasm]

In other words, is it always "Psychological Manipulation" when you post online?

[Senex]

Amazon has two books titled "Influence" by Robert B. Cialdini. One is subtitled "The Psychology of Persuasion", and the other is subtitled "Science and Practice". Which one are any of you who recommended the title & author talking about?

Here is a review of the book in question http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing20.html

[Legend]

I will now becouse it is in fact a gaint chunk 'O' truth.

And again...

Alex.

[Azrael 5]

I pointed out the error in the Mark Twain quote sometime ago,but maybe his reading skills are as bad as his spelliing.

Oh we are all part of a psychologocal program eh? Woop! Do I get paid? I suppose if this is some kind of test then at least it occupies your time,in the absence of any sign of a career.

[Azrael 5]

Just wondered Jim,what happened to your Halloween performance? Weren't you consulting your legal people after it all came crashing down? You didnt see that coming did you big boy? Not so smart with your big talk about that incident it appears.

Also to refresh your memory you threatened to "cite me" on Magic Cafe some time ago when I called you out over some tapes I recall.I gave you my home address for the citation too.Only I don't appear to have recieved it.

Thanks.

[Jim Callahan]

In other words, is it always "Psychological Manipulation" when you post online?

No not at all.
I converse/post quite often with no intention to manipulate.

I do think you know that but are framing a question based upon the
assertions put forth by yourself and others.

I offer the truth but you reject/delete/distort it.

My question would be why do you do this when the proof has been
provided many times in contradiction to your current query?
(Really if we are going to be show and telling please do so).

You created a model of what and who you think I am.
It was based upon what?

Really what did you base it upon?

Have you read any of the books suggested on this thread?

I know one poster is prattling on about how clever he is and knows all about Mr. Brown‘s methods.
But his posting exposes the lack of truth in his assertion.
(My opinion of course).

Have been quite forthcoming with information here.
(I am giving you what you want).

What is interesting is how strongly some people will hold onto what they have created.
Total inflexibility, an inability to examine the truth and see things as they are.
No matter what I say or would offer will be twisted to fit their current world view.

The information will and does undergo severe distortion, editing & deletion.
(I am very taken and pleased with those on this thread providing illustration of this fact).

A compulsion to prove the validity of ones creation when the real truth is shown to them.

If anything it was a sort of debunking of those who are engaging in this activity.

But please let me make one thing clear there is not just one reason or motivation for the presentations I have created and all of them were designed to make several points.

This is an honest response to your query and I will make clear any part you should so choose to question.

In fact if you PM me your phone number I will give you a call as I have done with numerous others.

As I said in another post Banacheck and I met and spent time together on numerous occasions.
We got on quite well and have very similar views of many things.

I have said many I am a skeptic.
(But not an ideological bigot).


Best Wishes,

Jim

[Azrael 5]

And no spelling mistakes.How telling.

[Senex]

In other words, is it always "Psychological Manipulation" when you post online?

No not at all.
I converse/post quite often with no intention to manipulate.

bang, bang, bang...that's my head hitting my computer monitor.

I just don't get it. Jim, how do you manipulate anyone with your writing. You sign your name J im with a space between the J and i and you write H.o.A-X with arbitrary upper and lower case. Is this why we should be scared you will manipulate us out of our pants (I'm not mentioning names but I think at least one poster here doesn't really need much in the way of manipulation ;) )That and poor spelling seems to worry some posters here you have woo power. There is no woo power. Spaces between letters, arbitrary use of lower and upper case and misspelling can not make anyone do or think anything they wouldn't ordinarily do or thnk.
I know one poster is prattling on about how clever he is and knows all about Mr. Brown‘s methods.
But his posting exposes the lack of truth in his assertion.
(My opinion of course).
Who is that poster? I love to expose truthlessness in assertions, especially about Derren Brown -- I know all about that guy.

[alfaniner]

"by... Mennen!"

[Jim Callahan]

And again...

Alex.

Sorry I just had to hold the hoop up one last time.;)

-J im

H.O.A-X

[Legend]

I am under your full mental control.

:rolleyes:

Spare me your pathetic attempts at amazement. For Christ's sake you've been doing that since you first got here you three year old.

You aren't cool.

Nor was it your intention to make me retort your s***house spelling ability equivalent to a mentally incapable, three year old horse.

Alex.

[Jim Callahan]

Oh please. For Christ's sake you've been doing that since you first got here you three year old.

Alex.

And yet you take the bait, why is that?

Well Because......;)

Just having some fun and proving a point.

Best Wishes,

Jim:)

[Legend]

Jim.

Let me be perfectly clear. After you've read my editted post, please go on.

You did not plant any "bait". You are not proving any point. You are pretended, almost wishing, that you were a little more mysterious than you really are.

What you are:
1. In need of a psychiatrist.
2. In need of another year 5 spelling course.
3. Incapable of cognitive activities.

What you are not:
1. Cool.
2. "The Worlds Most Controversial Mystery Artist", for two reasons. Numero Uno: The phrase on your site is a further progeny of your distinct lack of grammar/spelling ability. "Worlds" needs to have an apostrophe between the 'd' and the 's'. Numero Due: No matter whether "Worlds" has an apostrophe or not, you aren't anywhere near the world's most controversial mystery artist.
3. Spooky or mysterious in any way shape or form.
4. Someone who has planted "bait" for me to unwillingly take, so stop pretending it was your intention. It was not.
5. Cool.

Go away.

Alex.

I.d.I.O-T

[Jeff Corey]

One out two.

[Jim Callahan]

Jim.

Let me be perfectly clear. After you've read my editted post, please go on.

You did not plant any "bait". You are not proving any point. You are pretended, almost wishing, that you were a little more mysterious than you really are.

What you are:
1. In need of a psychiatrist.
2. In need of another year 5 spelling course.
3. Incapable of cognitive activities.

What you are not:
1. Cool.
2. "The Worlds Most Controversial Mystery Artist", for two reasons. Numero Uno: The phrase on your site is a further progeny of your distinct lack of grammar/speelling ability. "Worlds" needs to have an apostrophe between the 'd' and the 's'. Numero Due: No matter whether "Worlds" has an apostrophe or not, you aren't anywhere near the world's most controversial mystery artist.
3. Spooky or mysterious in any way shape or form.
4. Someone who has planted "bait" for me to unwillingly take, so stop pretending it was your intention. It was not.
5. Cool.

Go away.

Alex.

I.d.I.O-T

I agree you are correct Alex.

You had a choice to walk away and not be controlled.
Because you did not it throws your entire rant into question.

Ya feel better now?

I know I do because you do.

-J im

H.O.A-X

PS. THis post is just for fun.

[Legend]

I agree you are correct Alex.

You had a choice to walk away and not be controlled.
Because you did not it throws your entire rant into question.

Ya feel better now?

I know I do because you do.

-J im

H.O.A-X

PS. THis post is just for fun.

Well geez, you just get smarter by the second!

I was not controlled you fool. You did not control me. Get over yourself.

And by the way, I totally controlled you into writing that PM, therefore I win, and there is nothing you can say to disprove it other than a complete lack of evidence (or brain, in your case).

Alex.

[tesscaline]

Well... This thread has been derailed beyond the point of usefulness.

I really don't understand why so many people who claim to be skeptics have a) fallen for such obvious manipulation tactics, and b) can't wake up and smell the coffee even when someone is holding the mug under their noses for them.

Every time you talk about Jim, that's one more point in his corner (yes, I've just sacrificed one). Every time you insult him, its two points for him. And every time you respond to his posts with flaming... Yet another couple points.

The spelling mistakes are a misdirection to inflame your "you can't possibly be what you say you are because otherwise you could spell" response. Same with the grammatical errors. The fun little signature? Again, something to make you go "oh this guy is so woo he can't possibly be taken seriously."

It's working quite well even in this thread amongst a group of so-called skeptics. So well, in fact, that I'm deeply saddened and almost ashamed to consider myself a skeptic.

Jim, I offer you a reluctant bow. Seems you've won this one.

[Sideroxylon]

Well... This thread has been derailed beyond the point of usefulness.

I really don't understand why so many people who claim to be skeptics have a) fallen for such obvious manipulation tactics, and b) can't wake up and smell the coffee even when someone is holding the mug under their noses for them.

Every time you talk about Jim, that's one more point in his corner (yes, I've just sacrificed one). Every time you insult him, its two points for him. And every time you respond to his posts with flaming... Yet another couple points.

The spelling mistakes are a misdirection to inflame your "you can't possibly be what you say you are because otherwise you could spell" response. Same with the grammatical errors. The fun little signature? Again, something to make you go "oh this guy is so woo he can't possibly be taken seriously."

It's working quite well even in this thread amongst a group of so-called skeptics. So well, in fact, that I'm deeply saddened and almost ashamed to consider myself a skeptic.

Jim, I offer you a reluctant bow. Seems you've won this one.

Agree - It's been pretty transparent trolling. The guy is a performer and the paranormal claims are all part of the act.

[Legend]

To SkeptiChick:

Please don't tell me you're giving in to him. Just please don't.

If anyone is being manipulated, it's you.

So well, in fact, that I'm deeply saddened and almost ashamed to consider myself a skeptic.

As a result of the minority of murderers among us, are you ashamed and deeply saddened to be human?

I couldn't agree with you more on one thing. Jim knows how to aggravate people. He's nothing more than an attention seeker. I'd rather give him ten ton of negative attention, rather than an ounce of positive attention; which is his Holy Grail. So please, do not bow, agree, submit or indulge in any form of praise to this man, he doesn't deserve it. I have a lot of respect for you.

Trolling? Nah, just avidly seeking attention. He wants to be noticed. He's like those Showbiz people who haven't got anywhere, so they seek positive recognition anywhere they can. The internet is great.

Alex.

[Legend]

Neither this:
"you can't possibly be what you say you are because otherwise you could spell"

Nor this:
"oh this guy is so woo he can't possibly be taken seriously."

...has crossed my mind.

The bad spelling is not something that's used in this thread alone. Since he came here he's flooded us with a lack of decent grammar and spelling. Hell, it's not just us! Go check his posts on the Magic Cafe or whatever it's called. He does the same there.

His bad spelling and grammar is only due to a lack of thought, it's not manipulation, at all. It's sub-conscious and not a way of "winning" at all. So please, don't bow to him again.

You're dead right about one thing though, and that's the fact that I've (almost foolish) given up time talking to this man. He's lost in his own self praising delusions.

Alex.

[not daSkeptic]

Well... This thread has been derailed beyond the point of usefulness.

I disagree. I think it's a great case-study of the subject matter. It's only natural that people would feel angry.

[Sideroxylon]

I couldn't agree with you more on one thing. Jim knows how to aggravate people. He's nothing more than an attention seeker. I'd rather give him ten ton of negative attention, rather than an ounce of positive attention; which is his Holy Grail. So please, do not bow, agree, submit or indulge in any form of praise to this man, he doesn't deserve it. I have a lot of respect for you.

Trolling? Nah, just avidly seeking attention. He wants to be noticed. He's like those Showbiz people who haven't got anywhere, so they seek positive recognition anywhere they can. The internet is great.

Alex.


Do you mean to say trolling and attention seeking are mutually exclusive? I would have thought this was a motive for trolling? From what I have seen he is equally happy with the negative attention. He's probably having a right laugh when you give him a serve. Some people love getting a rise out of people – isn't it a bit of an Aussie tradition to draw a reaction from those taking things too seriously. If this has been a promotion tactic he has been successful – I had never heard of him before reading about him here.

He may not have gotten very far in the ranks of celebrity but it still must be a buzz to get on stage and get a reaction from people as has done.

[fls]

Every time you talk about Jim, that's one more point in his corner (yes, I've just sacrificed one). Every time you insult him, its two points for him. And every time you respond to his posts with flaming... Yet another couple points.

Maybe he's trying to save up enough points to get the toaster, and we're helping him out ('cuz we're nice).

Linda

[Jim Callahan]

I disagree. I think it's a great case-study of the subject matter. It's only natural that people would feel angry.

I agree.

Allot of deletion & distortion going on.;)

I am really surprised that a good number of those posting
appear not to understand the tools and techniques at play.

Possibly it might help to point out that the tools are layered.

For instance the spelling and grammar tool accomplishes several things.
It is something I came up with years ago when working with a stroke victim.

It is based upon Ericson hypnosis, personality profiling and interactive theater/performance art.

The intentional misquote of Twain is also part of the same tool set.
(It accomplishes three things).


Best Wishes,

Jim

[Azrael 5]

I agree.

Allot of deletion & distortion going on.;)

I am really surprised that a good number of those posting
appear not to understand the tools and techniques at play.

Possibly it might help to point out that the tools are layered.

For instance the spelling and grammar tool accomplishes several things.
It is something I came up with years ago when working with a stroke victim.
They hadn't seen your act I hope?

It is based upon Ericson hypnosis, personality profiling and interactive theater/performance art.

The intentional misquote of Twain is also part of the same tool set.
(It accomplishes three things).


Best Wishes,

Jim

Yes it shows you're a troll.So spelling mistakes are part of a theatrical act? Oh that explains it! Ok thne form now on I shall create my own perfromance art :rolleyes:

True it's nearest you'll ever get to having a theatre performance.

You aren't as smart as you think.Criss Angel ruined your integrity(what little you had)in one sentence.Haven't seen you on TV since?

Where is my writ? You asked for real names.I gave it to you.Again you cannot man up when it's neeed.

As I posted in another thread IF all the spelling mistakes etc are part of some experiment,it's pretty sad.
But I suppose Criss has a career,is a mutli millionaire,whereas you Jim have what exactly? Playing childish games instead of real debate(of which you are inacapable of).That's success right there! :D

[JFrankA]

There is no shame in not being able to throw woo in a bar. I can't either. We can go out someday and throw the NLP out as much as we can stand the rejection at a drinking site. I'd like to try a hypnosis set but I need someone experienced to give me a bit of advice.

Sorry to respond so late with this, but I was kind of busy this weekend.

Now, of course, NLP and hypnosis will not work in a bar, if it seems to work, that's only because the person doing it has more confidence in her/him self and that will shine through. Confidence is usually more desirable in a person than no confidence. But, in the end, a "subject" will make the final choice of how to react to NLP or hypnosis.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. For example, my girlfriend drops into a trace when I touch her because she wants to (I am her boyfriend, I didn't get her to be my girlfriend through hypnosis, I did it the old-fashioned way :) ) and expects it to happen. Same thing when I do a show: the audience pays to sit and allow me to manipulate them. They put me in a very powerful position, but, truth be known, they can take that power away by just not wanting the show to go well.

I know NLP has other "tricks" to make people do your bidding, but all those things fall flat if the subject simply doesn't want to do what you are trying to get them to do. Desire and belief go a long way in aiding psychological manipulation.

To go a little further with this whole manipulation thing, it seems to me that basically we all do it. Even the very young. From a child who cries to his parents to buy him a G.I. Joe with the Kung-Fu grip to a person using her/his sexiness to get you to buy this shaver instead of that one, we all do it. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It might work on some people, it might not on others.

Let me give you another example of this: advertising. How well does it really work? I mean, it's an advertiser's job to get you to buy their product. Their job is to manipulate you to like their product more than any other product in out there. If psychological manipulation, i.e. NLP and hypnosis, work as some people give it credit for, then we'd all own every brand of every product out there.

In fact, all this "manipulation" can really do is influnece. It cannot make you do anything. The truth is, the final decision to have some kind of psychological manipulation to work on you is you. Period. You can choose not to listen, or to jump right in. The final choice, no matter how many tricks that are played on you, is yours.

That being said, there is one trick that seems to lower your ability to remember you have that choice: confusion. By my experience and observation, confusion is the only thing that seems to help psychological manipulation. You confuse someone enough they'll be more open to agreeing with you or following orders, etc. It's not fool proof, and if you use it you have to be on your toes, but it's power comes from the idea of catching someone off guard. Hypnotists and NLP'ers use it a lot. Derren Brown illustrates that in a lot of his work.

I say this because confusion (which includes misdirection) is the main weapon used by magicians and con men. :)

However, even with that, the final choice, the final descion is always and always will be yours.

[Legend]

I agree.

Allot of deletion & distortion going on.;)

I am really surprised that a good number of those posting
appear not to understand the tools and techniques at play.

Possibly it might help to point out that the tools are layered.

For instance the spelling and grammar tool accomplishes several things.
It is something I came up with years ago when working with a stroke victim.

It is based upon Ericson hypnosis, personality profiling and interactive theater/performance art.

The intentional misquote of Twain is also part of the same tool set.
(It accomplishes three things).


Best Wishes,

Jim

You still think that it's manipulation? Honestly, you truly need help.

This is sad. Honestly sad. Never would I have expected to meet a middle-aged man who thinks he can use spelling and grammar mistakes to assist personality profiling.

You must have had a bad childhood.

Alex.

[Legend]

Some people love getting a rise out of people – isn't it a bit of an Aussie tradition to draw a reaction from those taking things too seriously.

We also run around jumping on crocodiles and comparing the sizes of our knives.

Sorry to disappoint, but it isn't something that really happens all that much. No more than it would in any other place on Earth. The image of a "laid-back" Australian, IMO, is accurate, but with what you've described, I dunno.

Sorry to respond so late with this, but I was kind of busy this weekend.

Now, of course, NLP and hypnosis will not work in a bar, if it seems to work, that's only because the person doing it has more confidence in her/him self and that will shine through. Confidence is usually more desirable in a person than no confidence. But, in the end, a "subject" will make the final choice of how to react to NLP or hypnosis.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. For example, my girlfriend drops into a trace when I touch her because she wants to (I am her boyfriend, I didn't get her to be my girlfriend through hypnosis, I did it the old-fashioned way :) ) and expects it to happen. Same thing when I do a show: the audience pays to sit and allow me to manipulate them. They put me in a very powerful position, but, truth be known, they can take that power away by just not wanting the show to go well.

I know NLP has other "tricks" to make people do your bidding, but all those things fall flat if the subject simply doesn't want to do what you are trying to get them to do. Desire and belief go a long way in aiding psychological manipulation.

To go a little further with this whole manipulation thing, it seems to me that basically we all do it. Even the very young. From a child who cries to his parents to buy him a G.I. Joe with the Kung-Fu grip to a person using her/his sexiness to get you to buy this shaver instead of that one, we all do it. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It might work on some people, it might not on others.

Let me give you another example of this: advertising. How well does it really work? I mean, it's an advertiser's job to get you to buy their product. Their job is to manipulate you to like their product more than any other product in out there. If psychological manipulation, i.e. NLP and hypnosis, work as some people give it credit for, then we'd all own every brand of every product out there.

In fact, all this "manipulation" can really do is influnece. It cannot make you do anything. The truth is, the final decision to have some kind of psychological manipulation to work on you is you. Period. You can choose not to listen, or to jump right in. The final choice, no matter how many tricks that are played on you, is yours.

That being said, there is one trick that seems to lower your ability to remember you have that choice: confusion. By my experience and observation, confusion is the only thing that seems to help psychological manipulation. You confuse someone enough they'll be more open to agreeing with you or following orders, etc. It's not fool proof, and if you use it you have to be on your toes, but it's power comes from the idea of catching someone off guard. Hypnotists and NLP'ers use it a lot. Derren Brown illustrates that in a lot of his work.

I say this because confusion (which includes misdirection) is the main weapon used by magicians and con men. :)

However, even with that, the final choice, the final descion is always and always will be yours.

It's interesting, I read in an e-book by Bob Cassidy called "The Real Work of Stage Hypnosis".

It wrote: "Hypnosis can be induced in rigorous exercise".

Alex.

[Jim Callahan]

You still think that it's manipulation? Honestly, you truly need help.

This is sad. Honestly sad. Never would I have expected to meet a middle-aged man who thinks he can use spelling and grammar mistakes to assist personality profiling.

You must have had a bad childhood.

Alex.

Alex, thanks for your continued assistance and for providing a compelling example of DaSkeptics observation.

Have a good one.

J im

H.O.A-X

[arthwollipot]

Heh. Amazing that Jim still thinks that what he's doing is clever.

Jim, I do cleverer retcons in my roleplaying game.

[Sideroxylon]

We also run around jumping on crocodiles and comparing the sizes of our knives.

No crocs down south are there. All part of growing up for this boy from the Territory :D

[Legend]

Alex, thanks for your continued assistance and for providing a compelling example of DaSkeptics observation.

Have a good one.

J im

H.O.A-X

Arthwollipot has perfectly stated my opinion on this oh so AMAZING act, Jim! You're an amazing manipulator of the mind. I am under your full control.

:rolleyes:

Like talking to a brick.

Alex.

[arthwollipot]

BTW, this is the only reaction I have. What Jim is doing is retconning - retroactively claiming that he did or said certain things for certain purposes, when at the time he had no such purpose in mind. Jim says something, Alex replies, then Jim says "I totally manipulated you into saying that." It's a pretty ordinary tool, and not very clever.

[Legend]

Thankyou.

Precisely my point all along.

If anyone is being "manipulated" here, it's those who seriously believe that he can do what he is pretending he can do.

Alex.

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, this is the only reaction I have. What Jim is doing is retconning - retroactively claiming that he did or said certain things for certain purposes, when at the time he had no such purpose in mind. Jim says something, Alex replies, then Jim says "I totally manipulated you into saying that." It's a pretty ordinary tool, and not very clever.I'm out of this loop. I challenge Mr Callahan to PM me with his planned manipulation prior to implementing it. Then we can see if he indeed was successful.

Caveat: predicting a typical response will be considered a valid criticism if that's all one can say about the supposed planned manipulation. I will be neutral in reporting the PM prediction. In fact, I'll be happy to just post the PM after the fact if that is what Mr Callahan agrees to.

[kitakaze]

BTW, this is the only reaction I have. What Jim is doing is retconning - retroactively claiming that he did or said certain things for certain purposes, when at the time he had no such purpose in mind. Jim says something, Alex replies, then Jim says "I totally manipulated you into saying that." It's a pretty ordinary tool, and not very clever.

Absolutely yes. I have pointed this out in the Jim Callahan vs Chad Sanborn thread. Jim takes certain suggestions about what he may be doing and endorses the ones he likes the feel of and add a little embellishment and backstory to it. It helps him project the image of being in control and as you say, when people respond to it he can claim the being in control all along. It's boring and not any kind of adept manipulation at all.

[kitakaze]

I'm out of this loop. I challenge Mr Callahan to PM me with his planned manipulation prior to implementing it. Then we can see if he indeed was successful.

Caveat: predicting a typical response will be considered a valid criticism if that's all one can say about the supposed planned manipulation. I will be neutral in reporting the PM prediction. In fact, I'll be happy to just post the PM after the fact if that is what Mr Callahan agrees to.

I'm very pleased to see this post as it was this type of idea that brought me over from the other thread to post.

Let's take this suggestion a bit further. First, let's up the impartiality element. Instead of using you, let's use moderator Chillzero as the person Callahan can PM with his planned manipulation.Second, and I mean this with no offense to Alex I suggest the following people as targets:

skeptigirl

Arthwollipot

Myself

Jim may choose one or all three of us if he is half as adept as he would have you believe.

I'm am quite confident he is unable. What's more, I predict he will ignore or shirk off an invitation to display the Subliminal Compliance techniques he leads you to believe he has. This should be taken as evidence that Callahan is not any kind of adept manipulator at all and the discussion can be concluded thereby robbing him of further opportunities to push the idea.

Callahan says he likes puzzles and tries to create the impression that he is a skilled manipulator in creating realities he chooses.

Bring it on, Callahan.

[Myriad]

For anyone that has noted the transparency of Jim Callahan's claims to be in control and manipulating others in some type of thought provoking performance and has been wondering what is the best solution to counter his games without feeding into them I have some good news.

Both Arthwollipot and myself have noted that Callahan uses a very silly type of retconning to re-enforce the idea that he is successfully manipulating people. He sees suggestions by various members of what he may have been doing. If he likes the feel of a certain suggestion, he will latch on to it and add some embellishment and back story to make it appear as though he was employing it all along. When people respond to this objectionably he simply says that the person is further showing his abilities.

Both myself and another member, skeptigirl, noted in the Subliminal Compliance thread that any real adeptness at psychological manipualtion could be tested and should be easy to show. We both independantly suggested that to eliminate the obvious retconning that Callahan was using, that he inform a neutral person by pm of his planned manipulation before doing so. I took the suggestion further and offered that to ensure impartiality in the observer that moderator chillzero be designated as the one to receive the pm of Callahan's planned manipulation.

In skeptigirl's line of suggestion the target would have potentially been a teenaged boy. With no offence intended to that young man, I suggested that the targets be Arthwollipot, skeptigirl, and myself; there are definitely others but we are the first three that came to mind for examples of people that were not playing into Callahan's games. I suggested that Callahan could choose one but given the kind of proficiency he indicates he has for this non-paranormal psychological technique that he advertises on his website, he should very easily be able to manipulate the three of us either separately or in a collective fashion. I also suggested that if Callahan either declined, refused, or ignored the invitiation that it would qualify as more than sufficient evidence that he is full of it in terms of his claims of being in control and that the question would reach conclusion.

I think we can put an end to this kind of silliness and do so in a manner that doesn't involve pleasing Jim with the insults and personal comments that he is baiting. Also note that Jim claims to be creating realities and in doing so creating value. Jim has no claim to or control of any value to be gained in any of the discussions or activities I refer to. These things are accomplished not because of Jim's desires but rather in spite of them. Any claim otherwise is semantic and another example of the retconning he employs.

I would ask that anyone who would like to comment on this post please quote it then respond in the Subliminal Compliance (aka psychological manipulation thread) as it is just meant as a heads up.


As an alternative to revealing the claim in advance to a neutral person, Mr. Callahan could simply write his claim in a brief sentence, then use this site: http://www.ideaspace.net/misc/hash/ to generate a hash code for it, and post the hash code here.

For example, at that site, I have entered my prediction for the results of this test, in a simple sentence in the field labeled "Enter your e-mail address here:". I then click the "MD4" button, and the following code appears in the Hashed Result field:

17107100441d367217263e17099c32d5

The prediction I made cannot be decoded from the hash result, because the hash result is not unique to any one sequence of characters. However, it would be extremely difficult or impossible to create a different prediction that would yield the same hash code. (Changing any part of the input text results in a completely different code sequence.) So, by posting it in this message, I have created a way to verify, in the future, that I made that prediction today.

Once I reveal the prediction, anyone else can put that same sentence into the hash code generator, and determine whether or not the resulting MD4 hash code is the same as the one I posted here. (I had better write down the exact sequence of characters, including case, spaces, and punctuation, because changing any character will change the hash code completely.) If the same hash code comes out, then it is extremely strong evidence that I really did make the prediction at the time of this post.

If I later refuse to reveal the exact prediction text, or if the prediction text I report does not match the hash code, then that would mean I have failed to verify my prediction, and (were I trying to convince anyone of my ability to make accurate predictions) strongly suggest that I made a wrong prediction or no prediction at all.

This method removes the trustworthiness of the neutral person from consideration in this test. Mr. Callahan need only write a brief sentence describing his plan; that is, what result he intends to achieve using psychological manipulation during a certain future time period; and then post the hash code for that sentence in this thread. At the end of the stated time period, he can then reveal the exact text of his plan, and we can observe whether those results have occurred. By checking the hash code against his posted one, we can also all verify individually, each to his or her own satisfaction, that the plan he reveals at the end is the same as the one he began with.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Legend]

Second, and I mean this with no offense to Alex I suggest the following people as targets:


None taken, I'd rather watch.

Alex.

[Azrael 5]

BTW, this is the only reaction I have. What Jim is doing is retconning - retroactively claiming that he did or said certain things for certain purposes, when at the time he had no such purpose in mind. Jim says something, Alex replies, then Jim says "I totally manipulated you into saying that." It's a pretty ordinary tool, and not very clever.

Reminds me of a "game" we played at first school,when someone called another an insulting name,the other would retort "Know you are said you are but what am I!" In absence of a good comeback.

This is Jim.

ETA: Jim and challenges don't go together.Expect a major "spaz" ;)

[kitakaze]

As an alternative to revealing the claim in advance to a neutral person, Mr. Callahan could simply write his claim in a brief sentence, then use this site: http://www.ideaspace.net/misc/hash/ to generate a hash code for it, and post the hash code here.

(snip)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you for your excellent suggestion, Myriad. I think that will prove to be a most useful tool when dealing with the likes that we are now.

[arthwollipot]

I am willing to participate in such an experiment.

[Jim Callahan]

As an alternative to revealing the claim in advance to a neutral person, Mr. Callahan could simply write his claim in a brief sentence, then use this site: http://www.ideaspace.net/misc/hash/ to generate a hash code for it, and post the hash code here.

For example, at that site, I have entered my prediction for the results of this test, in a simple sentence in the field labeled "Enter your e-mail address here:". I then click the "MD4" button, and the following code appears in the Hashed Result field:

17107100441d367217263e17099c32d5

The prediction I made cannot be decoded from the hash result, because the hash result is not unique to any one sequence of characters. However, it would be extremely difficult or impossible to create a different prediction that would yield the same hash code. (Changing any part of the input text results in a completely different code sequence.) So, by posting it in this message, I have created a way to verify, in the future, that I made that prediction today.

Once I reveal the prediction, anyone else can put that same sentence into the hash code generator, and determine whether or not the resulting MD4 hash code is the same as the one I posted here. (I had better write down the exact sequence of characters, including case, spaces, and punctuation, because changing any character will change the hash code completely.) If the same hash code comes out, then it is extremely strong evidence that I really did make the prediction at the time of this post.

If I later refuse to reveal the exact prediction text, or if the prediction text I report does not match the hash code, then that would mean I have failed to verify my prediction, and (were I trying to convince anyone of my ability to make accurate predictions) strongly suggest that I made a wrong prediction or no prediction at all.

This method removes the trustworthiness of the neutral person from consideration in this test. Mr. Callahan need only write a brief sentence describing his plan; that is, what result he intends to achieve using psychological manipulation during a certain future time period; and then post the hash code for that sentence in this thread. At the end of the stated time period, he can then reveal the exact text of his plan, and we can observe whether those results have occurred. By checking the hash code against his posted one, we can also all verify individually, each to his or her own satisfaction, that the plan he reveals at the end is the same as the one he began with.

Respectfully,
Myriad



Thanks for the information.
I will use it in the future.:)

But for the record the test/demonstration/experiment was started before this thread.

In fact DaSkeptic made note of it and has offered commentary that has been ignored because
it is the truth many here will not acknowledge.

The reason being, it is psychologically uncomfortable to do so.

However I will explain the value of the Twain quote tactic and when I first started using it.

Best Wishes,

Jim

[Azrael 5]

Thanks for the information.
I will use it in the future.:)

But for the record the test/demonstration/experiment was started before this thread.

In fact DaSkeptic made note of it and has offered commentary that has been ignored because
it is the truth many here will not acknowledge.

The reason being, it is psychologically uncomfortable to do so.

However I will explain the value of the Twain quote tactic and when I first started using it.

Best Wishes,

Jim

Remind me again what is your talent? Other than being irritating and boring.:rolleyes:

[kitakaze]

But for the record the test/demonstration/experiment was started before this thread.

Callahan has just provided the evidence that I spoke of. We are obviously aware that the alleged adept manipulation began before this thread. That was the reason for the creation of this thread. Callahan is getting more and more sloppy.

Also note that the language he uses in that sentence is a carefully chosen attempt to de-emphasize the Subliminal Compliance skills advertised on his website.

[Jim Callahan]

I am sorry I did hope to post the explanation of the Mark Twain quote today.

But other things came up.

I care more about my kid than I do any forum.
(So possibly tomorrow).

I am sure you all feel the same way about you family and friends.

Best Wishes,

Jim

[kitakaze]

I am sorry I did hope to post the explanation of the Mark Twain quote today.

Don't apologize and don't bother. Nobody is interested in your silly retconning. Give us the juice. Use the hash site or PM chillzero and let see some real skill. Skeptigirl, Arthwollipot, and myself are ready. Looks like you are behaving exactly as I predicted. Maybe I'm a skilled manipulator.

[not daSkeptic]

Don't apologize and don't bother. Nobody is interested in your silly retconning. Give us the juice. Use the hash site or PM chillzero and let see some real skill. Skeptigirl, Arthwollipot, and myself are ready. Looks like you are behaving exactly as I predicted. Maybe I'm a skilled manipulator.

This is not a thread about testing Jim Callahan. If you want to discuss that, take it elsewhere. However, if you would like to discuss, in general, how to differentiate between psychological manipulation and retroactive continuity, then I would consider that a subject relevant to this thread.

[kitakaze]

This is not a thread about testing Jim Callahan.

Correct. In the OP you stated:

I bring this up not to discuss Callahan himself, but to discuss the subject of psychological manipulation in general. I use Callahan only as an example with which many of us here have direct experience.

I would however suggest that it was inevitable that the thread went in the direction of Callahan and whether or not he is adept at the skill he advertises. Nevertheless..

If you want to discuss that, take it elsewhere. However, if you would like to discuss, in general, how to differentiate between psychological manipulation and retroactive continuity, then I would consider that a subject relevant to this thread.

We are discussing the difference between psychological retconning and manipulation. In addition we are inviting someone to show us. I believe that person is unable to do so and will not accept the invitation to do so thereby making the fact clear. If Callahan were to accept that invitation then I completely agree another thread would be warranted. Being confident that the invitation will not be accepted, I would not like to add unnecessarily to the number of Jim Callahan threads. I apologize if this distracts from the discussion you wish you have but as you know, threads often take on a life of there own. As you can plainly see, whether or not Callahan is a skilled manipulator has contributed to a large portion of this thread.

You yourself said:

Honestly, I don't mind if Jim is involved in the discussion so long as it's on the general topic and not him specifically. He is, after all, someone who has demonstrated skill and experience in this area.

I disagree with that opinion. I don't think he has shown any real skill in this area. I don't think any of his activity here or "dying" online qualifies either. What leads you to think so?

[not daSkeptic]

I would however suggest that it was inevitable that the thread went in the direction of Callahan and whether or not he is adept at the skill he advertises.

It was not inevitable. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the subject in general. I selected Callahan as one example, but there are undoubtedly other figures in the field. If people cannot respect my reference to him as it was intended and insist on focusing on him, then I submit they have some sort of personal issue they need to address and should go elsewhere.

I don't think he has shown any real skill in this area. I don't think any of his activity here or "dying" online qualifies either. What leads you to think so?

I have cited the sources that lead to my opinion. If you do not think Callahan is a worthy example for the subject, then please suggest an alternative.

[Legend]

I am sorry I did hope to post the explanation of the Mark Twain quote today.

But other things came up.

I care more about my kid than I do any forum.
(So possibly tomorrow).

I am sure you all feel the same way about you family and friends.

Best Wishes,

Jim

In other words: I haven't yet created a BS method that I can claim to have used, so give me another day and I should have one made up.

Alex.

[JFrankA]

...if you would like to discuss, in general, how to differentiate between psychological manipulation and retroactive continuity, then I would consider that a subject relevant to this thread.

Retroactive continuity is part of psychological manipulation. Cold-Readers do it all the time. It's a way of convincing someone that you had the answer all along. Also, if you are really good, you make the answer just confusing enough to get your subject off balance.

I have cited the sources that lead to my opinion....please suggest an alternative.


I have been: specifically, Derren Brown. I've also mentioned generally magicians, mentalists, cold-readers, hypnotists (such as myself), and con-men...and con-women. :)

Remember the basic rule: The only way that any kind of psychological manipulation can work, short of actual physical abuse, is making the person forget that they have a choice.

What stops any kind of psychological manipulation is keeping in mind that you have a choice. What also helps is knowing why you made the choice you are making. So the basic goal of anyone attempting psychological manipulation is catching you off guard to make you forget you have a choice.

There are many different methods to do this, and I'll give you a short list, if you choose to indulge me:

1. Doing something that breaks a pattern. An example of that is to offer your hand as a handshake and then at the last moment pull it away, thus breaking a pattern that has been established.

2. Getting someone to agree with several statements that you've made so when you come to a statement you want them to agree with, they will be more likely to agree. A rather simple example would be something like a politician who says "Unemployment is bad." You agree. Then says "You don't want to be unemployed". You agree. "You would have a hard time if you were unemployed". You agree. "You want someone in the government to help stop unemployment". You agree. "You want someone to understands how hard it would be for you to be unemployed". You agree. "I understand how hard it would be for you if you were unemployed". You agree.

That's a rather simple example, but you get the gist. The idea is to start with facts and go to possible truths then to what you want the person to agree with.

3. Ambiguous statements or questions. "You like me to help you?" is a question that will most likely end in a "yes", but in the question is the statement "you like me". Again, a rather simple example, but it illustrates the point.

4. Emphasis on certain words. "would YOU LIKE something from ME?" ..yes, I'm sticking to simple examples. :)

5. What I call "bullying". That is, just using intimidation, or giving an order to someone. This can even be done in a light-hearted, friendly way. "Of course you do want to do this."

6. Out and out purposeful confusion. Words used incorrectly, misquotes, saying one thing intelligibly then saying something else similar, giving very confusing explanations, etc. (I sincerely hope that my explanations aren't confusing. :) )

The goal of all of these "techniques" is to confuse, misdirect or distract the person so much, that they forget that they have a choice to not listen or react. If you're good, you can keep that confusion going, because all the confusion these techniques produce are short-lived. Because once a person chooses not to fall for it, no technique in the world will work. People will tell you it will and that's where the woo comes in.

Psychological manipulation is great for a stage performance or doing a trick, or, in my case, a playing with my girlfriend. :) However, as a way to get people to do what you want all the time, to control people and completely manipulate them to do your bidding or fall in love with you....total woo.

[kitakaze]

It was not inevitable. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the subject in general. I selected Callahan as one example, but there are undoubtedly other figures in the field. If people cannot respect my reference to him as it was intended and insist on focusing on him, then I submit they have some sort of personal issue they need to address and should go elsewhere.

Respectfully, I disagree about the inevitability. The thread came about as a result of looking into JC, at a time when JC was actively posting, and there was focus on him and his claims by a number of people in the GS&P:

After doing a bit of research with good 'ol Google (which I admit should have been done a long time ago) I have discovered that the illustrious Jim Callahan is little more than a professional psychological manipulator.

I am very much with you in thinking it is lame that the thread became focused on JC and would like that to end. I would suggest that saying people have personal issues if they became focused on JC and his responses in this thread is not quite fair or realistic. Nevertheless, although I do not want to be a party to contributing to having further JC threads I will do so regarding challenging his claims at being an adept psychological manipulator out of respect and appreciation for the discussion as you intended it. I hope the discussion can continue without being derailed.

I have cited the sources that lead to my opinion. If you do not think Callahan is a worthy example for the subject, then please suggest an alternative.

Adolph Hitler is a good example of an adept psychological manipulator.

[kitakaze]

The new thread on challenging Callahan's Subliminal Compliance adeptness can be found here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133017

My apologies to daSkeptic for the derail of his discussion.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks for the information.
I will use it in the future.:)

But for the record the test/demonstration/experiment was started before this thread.

In fact DaSkeptic made note of it and has offered commentary that has been ignored because
it is the truth many here will not acknowledge.

The reason being, it is psychologically uncomfortable to do so.

However I will explain the value of the Twain quote tactic and when I first started using it.

Best Wishes,

JimI totally made you say that.

[Azrael 5]

I totally made you say that.

LMAO :D

What is this manipulation Jim is so adept at(should I put this in the other thread?)? Getting people to reply to his posts? Wow it haooens all the time on forums,that's what they are there for! If it's to believe he has paranormal powers,I don't think anyone on here believes that.Because he makes deliberate(he claims)spelling mistakes,that people correct him on? Again wow! You would expect some degree of literacy when posting on a forum.
IF all that is true so what? Surely it makes Jim a sad individual.
Also I think Randi has manipulated Jim! WHo is that continually attacks,and attempts to riducule and slander him? Why Jim of course.Randi makes one comment about him on his page some time ago and lights the fuse then sits back in amusement as he Jim conforms to type.
Well done Jim have a gin.:D

[JFrankA]

I'll start the discussion with a simple question: Once a person has been discovered to be manipulating, can anything they have said or will say ever be trusted? .... What do others think?

Going back to the original question, I think the line is drawn when the lights are dark, the camera is off, and the stage is empty.

When a performer is on stage or on camera, performing, anything goes. Lie your fool head off. Derren does this, Penn & Teller do this, Criss Angel does this, any magician, mentalist, hypnotist, etc, does this on stage. We have to. It's our job to decieve you while we are up there. That's what you pay us to do. You choose to give us the power to manipulate you.

However, once the "curtain drops", the show is over, it is that performer's responsiblity to be honest. I don't mean give away the secret of the tricks, I mean fess up to reality and say that all they did was fool the audience. There's no magic, no special powers, no long lasting infallible psychological manipulation.

That's the line.

For example, there was an episode from Criss Angel's show where he did a seance and ghost appeared, etc, etc. It made it look like he had this power to call the dead. But at the end of the show, at the end of the credits, he came on screen and said "Do you believe in ghosts? I don't" with a wink. Right there, he was telling everyone it was just a trick.

Penn & Teller do this too. They will tell you right out that they are lieng, do the trick, and it's still amazing.

That's being an "honest liar". That's the line. If a person who likes a magician is willing to look beyond the stage, and sees that that performer is just a person, no powers, no supernatural abilities, etc, and that performer is willing to admit that, then that performer is to be trusted.

In my twenty-some-odd years of studying magic, there has never ever been a trick in which a secret says "Now use your magic abilities to communicate to the dead to get the answer" or some such nonsense. Any magician or mentalist at all will vouch for that.

Once a performer, when the show is done, continues to claim that they can use psychological manipulations all the time and sell books, not to teach how to do a magic performance, but to teach this as a way to control others, has stepped over the line.

[Elvis666]

JC is just the equivalent of the kid who repeats everything you say until you get irritated at him.

[Legend]

Deleted so as to not lead this thread further away from its origins.

Alex.

[arthwollipot]

Penn & Teller do this too. They will tell you right out that they are lieng, do the trick, and it's still amazing.Have you seen them do the Cup and Balls with clear plastic cups? Wow. You see everything, and yet you still see nothing!

[Jim Callahan]

Sorry man it sounds a bit like a fitting for a ball team.
I do not think I have to go any further.

Jim

[kitakaze]

I think Banachek can be rightly said to be an adept psychological manipulator. Definitely one of the real ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_H-F3hlKY&feature=related

[kitakaze]

Looks like Banacheck has garnered a lot of respect and won many awards for hos talents:

Banachek is often sought out by various top entertainers and magic TV shows around the world as a consultant. The entertainers include Penn & Teller, David Blaine, Lance Burton, James Randi and Criss Angel.[citation needed] He has been responsible for putting more magic and mentalism on American television than any other magic consultant in the world.[citation needed]

Banachek has received the APCA (Association for the Promotion of Campus Activities) Entertainer of the Year award two years in a row and the College Campus novelty act. He also has been the recipient of the Psychic Entertainers Association's coveted awards for creativity in mentalism, the Dan Blackwood award for outstanding contributions to mentalism and the Dunninger Award, awarded for "Distinguished Professionalism in the Performance of Mentalism."

Banachek is renowned for fooling scientists at Washington University into believing that his supposed psychic abilities were genuine during the Project Alpha hoax in the early 1980s. He also took part in an investigation with Randi exploring Peter Popoff, which ultimately exposed Popoff's false claims.[2]

In 2007 his book Psychological Subtleties 2 won the first place in The Magic Woods Awards, for best book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banachek

I would submit that Banachek would be an excellent commentator on psychological manipulation.

[JFrankA]

Have you seen them do the Cup and Balls with clear plastic cups? Wow. You see everything, and yet you still see nothing!

I love Penn & Teller. They do something amazing, tell you how they did it, and as you are sitting there, still reeling as to how it's done and still figureing it out, they do something even MORE amazing and the reaction is "woah! They said that this is trick...but how....?"

That's talent. That's what magicians are supposed to do. :)

I would submit that Banachek would be an excellent commentator on psychological manipulation.

I would agree. Banachek is one of those "Honest lairs". I have a bought and used a couple of his tricks. He's really good at this and another excellent book writer as well.

[Azrael 5]

Looking up the last few posts and the typos,I tihnk we have all fallen under Jim's subliinal trap :D

[Jim Callahan]

I love Penn & Teller. They do something amazing, tell you how they did it, and as you are sitting there, still reeling as to how it's done and still figureing it out, they do something even MORE amazing and the reaction is "woah! They said that this is trick...but how....?"

That's talent. That's what magicians are supposed to do. :)



I would agree. Banachek is one of those "Honest lairs". I have a bought and used a couple of his tricks. He's really good at this and another excellent book writer as well.


Banacheck and I got on pretty well for the several weeks we were around each other.
Why don't you contact him and ask him what he thinks about my performances.

He is a member here is he not?

Also the entire idea of honest liars is total BS in my opinion.
It a definition used by magic boys who want to pass judgment on others
for doing what they have not the skills to create and or perform.

Truth is the artists decides when the performance is over not another performer.
(You for instance).
The artist decides the rules and sets the boundaries of the performance.
I have and do.

What I do is not unlike what the writer of a novel does.
I create reality.
But my reality is dependant on yours for it is were the basic building materials are acquired.

As to the idea of subliminal control it is possible and it is based upon time and
exposure.
It is not a short term instant cause and effect situation.


Best Wishes,

Jim

[steenkh]

What I do is not unlike what the writer of a novel does.
I create reality.
Is that what a writer does?

Is that what you do??

[Czarcasm]

Do you know what they call writers that create fiction, but call it non-fiction?

[Azrael 5]

Banacheck and I got on pretty well for the several weeks we were around each other.
Why don't you contact him and ask him what he thinks about my performances.

He is a member here is he not?

Also the entire idea of honest liars is total BS in my opinion.
It a definition used by magic boys who want to pass judgment on others
for doing what they have not the skills to create and or perform.

Truth is the artists decides when the performance is over not another performer.
(You for instance).
The artist decides the rules and sets the boundaries of the performance.
I have and do.

*snip*

We decided your performance was over roundabout Halloween.:D

[kitakaze]

Also the entire idea of honest liars is total BS in my opinion.
It a definition used by magic boys who want to pass judgment on others
for doing what they have not the skills to create and or perform.

Funny, since Banachek is such a better performer than you and has the awards to prove it.

Truth is the artists decides when the performance is over not another performer.(You for instance).

Every time someone watches a youtube clip of you flailing about and doesn't bother to finish, they are deciding when the performance is over.

Uifl3IqAW3U

The artist decides the rules and sets the boundaries of the performance.
I have and do.

The only performance you're doing here is being an ass. Myself and others are on control of that performance.

What I do is not unlike what the writer of a novel does.
I create reality.
But my reality is dependant on yours for it is were the basic building materials are acquired.

What you do is not like a writer. A writer can tell you what she or he is going to write before they do it. The reality here is that you are a silly man.

As to the idea of subliminal control it is possible and it is based upon time and exposure. It is not a short term instant cause and effect situation.

You don't know anything about subliminal control. It has been proven. Banachek knows far more than you.