Ian Rowland and Mind Power (?)

[Clancie]

Well, I was a bit puzzled when I heard him speak about this at Cal Tech last year and, apparently it came up again at TAM2. I'm just curious....any thoughts on what he means by the idea of using "Mind Power"?

And...what keeps the concept from being "woo-wooish"? :confused:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I was a bit puzzled when I heard him speak about this at Cal Tech last year and, apparently it came up again at TAM2. I'm just curious....any thoughts on what he means by the idea of using "Mind Power"?

And...what keeps the concept from being "woo-wooish"? :confused:

Well, he didn't seem to go into any great depth about it but it seemed to be things like "visualizing a goal helps you work out strategies to accomplish that goal". It sounded more like pop psychology than anything else to me. Not "woo-wooish" but kind of vague and nothing someone couldn't figure out for themselves if they thought about it for about fifteen minutes or so. I wasn't impressed to be honest.

Now (using the same example) had he suggested that visualizing a goal somehow magically could make it real (without qualifying it as he did) THEN it would be "woo-wooish", IMO.

[Renfield]

Sounds getting into the Anthony Robbins'ish motivational speaker crap instead of woo woo crap now. Instead of telling lies for money he's telling people the obvious for money. Guess its a step up.

[Jeff Corey]

Yeah, I was not impressed with his so-called "motivational" pitch. He said that changing attitudes is the key to changing behavior - he has that bass ackward, and that "visualization" inproves performance. There's no evidence for that.
I dismissed that part of his talk at TAM2 as being half-baked pop psychology to con gullible businesspeople out of big bucks for a "seminar".
But, what the hay. He is a professional trickster.

[Iamme]

Mind power sounds like something special. But just plain thinking is mind power.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Yeah, I was not impressed with his so-called "motivational" pitch. He said that changing attitudes is the key to changing behavior - he has that bass ackward, and that "visualization" inproves performance. There's no evidence for that.
I dismissed that part of his talk at TAM2 as being half-baked pop psychology to con gullible businesspeople out of big bucks for a "seminar".
But, what the hay. He is a professional trickster. seconded. but then, his job is not to research this stuff.

[Wyvern]

Not woo woo, Clancie, but (IMO) the basic stuff that we all use to get through life. We determine what it is we want, and then we figure out how to go about getting it. Nothing magical; just yay-yay, rah-rah, you can do whatever you set your mind to.

I have to admit that when I first saw Mr. R's show at CalTech, I must have been overly impressed with his showmanship charm and good looks, as I thought it was a superb show. I saw much of the same material at his show at TAM2 and I was completely unimpressed.

I also disagree with some things he said (I believe it was during a panel session) regarding the use of cold reading techniques to get what you want in a variety of situations including romantic relationships. I have not read his book on cold reading so I cannot comment on the specific techniques, but the concept of using these "techniques", especially in a relationship, to get what you want strikes me as deceptive and manipulative. But . . . maybe that's just me . . .

[Clancie]

Well, I think Rowland's presentation has an interesting challenge and contradiction...balancing showmanship and deception with skepticism. I thought it worked in some ways, but not in others (like all the "Mind Power" things which, I agree, seemed to be aspirining to be a motivational speaker, even if it meant feeding people pop psychology platitudes that were of little or no intellectual value. There seems some inherent conflict in that, somehow.

And, Wyvern, I was right with you as far as thinking that was how Ian presented himself until he got to the part of pretending to pick bugs out of that one woman's hair and throw them on the floor and squash them (it was a time filler, folks). That really turned me off...and taken together with the "Use cold reading techniques to take advantage of people in real life! They work!" schtick....well, I just was a lot more impressed with the first part of the show, and with his appearance on "Prime Time Thursday".

I was just surprised he would try that motivational speaker/mind power thing again at TAM2. I agree with Jeff that it seemed designed to get corporate speaking engagements....but it just seemed the wrong venue for that, somehow, selling yourself that way in an auditorium of self-proclaimed skeptics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wyvern
I also disagree with some things he said (I believe it was during a panel session) regarding the use of cold reading techniques to get what you want in a variety of situations including romantic relationships. I have not read his book on cold reading so I cannot comment on the specific techniques, but the concept of using these "techniques", especially in a relationship, to get what you want strikes me as deceptive and manipulative. But . . . maybe that's just me . . .

No, I agree 100%. It's just that kind of manipulative bull$#!7 that I hate in dating and relationships. Just be open and honest with the other person. Why can so few people do that?

I was unimpressed with Rowland, too.

[Ian Rowland]

First of all, to everyone who was unimpressed with my performance at TAM2, join the club. So was I. Like any other performer, I'd love to be on top form and deliver a great show every time, but that's not real life. For various reasons you don't want to know about, I was under-prepared and not on best form. I knew it at the time, I admitted it at the time, and I was sorry about it then and I'm sorry about it now. But it's not like I can turn back time and fix it.

Clancie asks about the 'mindpower' theme. Briefly... it seems to me that almost every time someone goes on about 'powers of the mind' and so forth, they are either peddling pseudo-scientific psychic twaddle or re-working assorted New Age themes. This is a shame, because the human mind really CAN do extraordinary things. What's more, if you are pusruing particular goals in your life, or trying to bring about positive change, then your own mind is a darn good place to start because the way you apply your mind to your goals can have a significant effect on your success. That's basically all I'm saying. It isn't earth-shattering and it isn't meant to be. Sometimes, simple points are worth making. In the lecture to which people are referring here, I don't have a lot of time to expand on these points, but on other occasions I have and I do.

I see the dreaded 'manipulation' point has been raised once more in this thread. * Sigh * . In my cold reading book, I deal with this ethical point. Suffice it here to say I have never, and do not, ever advocate manipulating people. To say that cold reading can be applied to situations x, y or z is not to say it should be. To those here championing simple honesty and truth, yay, that's my song and I'm glad to be part of the choir.

[NoZed Avenger]

Walking into an audience of skeptics, many of whom had studied cold reading (and had your book, to boot, as I did) was a very gutsy thing to do, in my opinion.

A bunch of JREF'ers at a convention would be about the last people I'd want to try a demonstration on, so full marks for stepping up and agreeing to the demo, regardless. I thought that there was not any phenomenal information from the demo, but I thought it was comparable to a number of Larry King Live appearances by "psychics" that have also been discussed on the boards.

Very nice presentation of the envelope effect, by the way. Much enjoyed it.

N/A

[Brown]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
First of all, to everyone who was unimpressed with my performance at TAM2, join the club. So was I. Like any other performer, I'd love to be on top form and deliver a great show every time, but that's not real life. For various reasons you don't want to know about, I was under-prepared and not on best form. I knew it at the time, I admitted it at the time, and I was sorry about it then and I'm sorry about it now. But it's not like I can turn back time and fix it.Ian, let me say: Balderdash. YOUR performance as a whole had me scratching my head more than that of any other performer. The cold reading aspect may not have produced as many lucky hits as could be hoped for, but I still found it to be interesting and educational.

I'm currently reading your "Cold Reading" book, and I am seeing in the book many of the nuances that I missed during your live performance.

I have not yet seen much in your book that constitutes a discussion of mind power, but I agree with you entirely. Many of the folks who peddle 'mindpower' schemes are selling junk. But some of them really do teach useful mind techniques. Harry Lorayne's memory techniques, for example, have enabled me to do some startling memory stunts, such as memorizing an entire football roster (over 100 players, their player numbers and their home towns) and determining what playing cards are missing from a deck after seeing the other cards only once.

The bottom line: Harry's techniques work.

I tried some other 'mindpower' techniques, peddled by a popular personality, whom I choose not to name. I found that these techniques didn't work at all. Not one bit. The bottom line: All of the promises he made were false, and his techniques were worthless.

[Mercutio]

Ian--

You should also be warned that Jeff Corey and I are radical behaviorists, and as such were not responding nearly as much to your particular presentation as to the prescientific language of "mind" that is so common in popular psychology. Your presentation was, to my thinking, very impressive; my only wish was that the mentalistic language had been cleaned up.

On the other hand...you were not speaking to a group of behaviorists, you were speaking to people who use the language you used. I have no doubt that it was received better your way than it would have been my way. Please understand that my complaints (I won't speak for Dr. Corey) were not about your presentation nearly so much as about our language.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The material mind is a delusion that has no real power! We are just machines operating under materialism!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
The material mind is a delusion that has no real power! We are just machines operating under materialism! get it right, towlie...there is no "material mind"....but then, you are under no obligation to make sense.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ian-- Please understand that my complaints (I won't speak for Dr. Corey) were not about your presentation nearly so much as about our language.
Mercutio,
You can speak for me on this. I was reacting to the shopworn "Change your attitude and change your behavior" and the useless visualization schticks as a skeptic and rad behaviorist.

[Garrette]

Orginally posted by Jeff Corey:

I was reacting to the shopworn "Change your attitude and change your behavior" and the useless visualization schticks as a skeptic and rad behaviorist.

I'm not a radical behaviorist (or a behaviorist of any kind, that I know of), nor have I studied this area, nor did I attend TAM2.

I have, however, quite a bit of personal and professional experience in the realm of "changing" things.

I agree with Jeff. The key to changing your attitude is changing your behavior, not the other way around.

When I studied ninjutsu, I learned a very simple saying that went like this:

"If you want to be a warrior, pretend you are one."

[Toastrider]

Actually, Rowland's concepts are kind of interesting. You can see a similar 'pushing the envelope' effect with martial artists. And I mean the -really- good ones. While choreographing does make some movie stunts look more impressive, Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung can do things that -look- impossible -- but they just require a level of experience we don't have.

I also remember watching a martial-arts competition (forms only, I believe) and watching one young man performing with what appeared to be a short staff. He had that thing spinning so fast, I was wondering why it wasn't having a helicopter-blade effect (well, besides the fact that it wasn't angled, etc :) ).

Much like traditional 'magic' (illusion and legerdemain), it may look superhuman, but it's just the result of practice, devotion, more practice, and hard work.

--Toasty

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
I admitted it at the time, and I was sorry about it then and I'm sorry about it now. But it's not like I can turn back time and fix it.

I dunno, man...if you can do that trick with cutting up a newspaper page and make two rings that are interlocked, I don't see why turning back time should be a problem.... ;)

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
What's more, if you are pusruing particular goals in your life, or trying to bring about positive change, then your own mind is a darn good place to start because the way you apply your mind to your goals can have a significant effect on your success. That's basically all I'm saying.


Originally posted by Garrette
I agree with Jeff. The key to changing your attitude is changing your behavior, not the other way around.

OK. Two opposing viewpoints. Let's see the evidence, eh?

Originally posted by Brown
But some of them really do teach useful mind techniques. Harry Lorayne's memory techniques, for example, have enabled me to do some startling memory stunts, such as memorizing an entire football roster (over 100 players, their player numbers and their home towns)...

I'm sure that knowledge will come in handy some day...

Originally posted by Brown
...and determining what playing cards are missing from a deck after seeing the other cards only once.

That knowledge will come in handy some day... :D

Originally posted by Brown
The bottom line: Harry's techniques work.

How much did you win at the casinos? :D

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

I dunno, man...if you can do that trick with cutting up a newspaper page and make two rings that are interlocked, I don't see why turning back time should be a problem....

Those are the tricks that impressed you?

Man, oh man, I should have gone pro. Or psychic. Those are two that I can actually do pretty darn well.

Oh, the horrors of morality! Would that I could but prey upon the vulnerable and shed this nagging concern for my fellows.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

OK. Two opposing viewpoints. Let's see the evidence, eh?


I freely admit that my agreement is based solely on personal experience and personal observation and has no valid evidentiary basis. I am no position to debate its merits.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Mercutio
get it right, towlie...there is no "material mind"....but then, you are under no obligation to make sense.

The mind (and everything else) is reducible to material matter and has been explained by physical laws! You are obligated to accept this truth unless if you want to be labeled an irrational kooky believer!

Materialism is not to be questioned!!!!!!!!

[Darat]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


The mind (and everything else) is reducible to material matter and has been explained by physical laws! You are obligated to accept this truth unless if you want to be labeled an irrational kooky believer!

Materialism is not to be questioned!!!!!!!!

You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
Those are two that I can actually do pretty darn well.

Turn back time? How??

Originally posted by Garrette
Oh, the horrors of morality! Would that I could but prey upon the vulnerable and shed this nagging concern for my fellows.

Hey, I didn't say that I now believe Rowland has magic powers! :)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Turn back time? How??

I was actually referring to the torn-and-restored newspaper and the interlocking rings, but since you insist:

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=274

The description is more along the lines of moving time forward, but you can go the other way, too.

Well worth the price, btw.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Hey, I didn't say that I now believe Rowland has magic powers!

You're exactly where we want you; you don't even realize you're falling into our clutches. You're darn near a full-blown woo and just don't know it yet. Hah.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
I was actually referring to the torn-and-restored newspaper and the interlocking rings

Only, I wasn't. Rowland took one sheet of newspaper, and cut it into two interlocking paper rings.

Replicate that, magic-boy. :p

Originally posted by Garrette
http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=274

The description is more along the lines of moving time forward, but you can go the other way, too.

I'd like to see you do that with a digital watch... :)

Originally posted by Garrette
You're exactly where we want you; you don't even realize you're falling into our clutches. You're darn near a full-blown woo and just don't know it yet. Hah.

Heard that one before: "You are not a magician, you really have woo woo powers, you just don't know it!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.

Where has he stated this? What is he then? A dualist?

[Garrette]

CFLarsen:

Only, I wasn't. Rowland took one sheet of newspaper, and cut it into two interlocking paper rings.


Well, now, I do know one way to do it. I'd have to see Ian's performance to know if we're doing the same thing.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat


You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.
Well, he is a radical behaviorist, which is certainly not a dualist or idealist.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
Well, now, I do know one way to do it. I'd have to see Ian's performance to know if we're doing the same thing.


http://www.skepticreport.com/images/tam2-011.jpg

That's Dinonychus to the right, BTW. :)

[Garrette]

Ahah! World conquest is within my grasp! I can do that!

Now I need minions.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Where has he stated this? What is he then? A dualist?

Er in debates with you and in direct reply to you.

You had said:


I said with appropriate instruments and also mentioned indirect observations.

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed by Mercutio's stance here though

Doesn't seem like materialism to me!


And he replied as the next post on that thread straight back to you with:

You got me, Ian! I am not a materialist, but a pragmatist. I came into this argument simply to correct your use of vocabulary--if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product.
...snip...


And you even quoted that back to him in your response!

Incredible.

[Toastrider]

Turn back time? How??
First, you have to be Cher. Then...

(sorry, I had to say it :) )

--Toasty

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Er in debates with you and in direct reply to you.

You had said:


I said with appropriate instruments and also mentioned indirect observations.

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed by Mercutio's stance here though

Doesn't seem like materialism to me!


And he replied as the next post on that thread straight back to you with:

You got me, Ian! I am not a materialist, but a pragmatist. I came into this argument simply to correct your use of vocabulary--if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product.
...snip...


And you even quoted that back to him in your response!

Incredible.

If he's not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If he's not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?

Apart from a "why ask me?" it seems strange that you are questioning it, I thought you believed it was good to argue for a view you don't hold? Have you changed your mind about that?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Apart from a "why ask me?" it seems strange that you are questioning it, I thought you believed it was good to argue for a view you don't hold? Have you changed your mind about that?

You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!! First, why does it matter what I am?

Second, when I am shown a practical difference that shows me that idealism is superior to materialism, or vice versa, then perhaps--just perhaps--there will be an ontological position worth calling "mine". As Paul C. Ana*cough*ous has repeatedly tried to show you, there is no practical difference between them. And the question you ask ("if he is not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?") is answered in the quote just above your question ("if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product [of correcting your use of vocabulary]")

Thirdly, Darat! Wow! I had no idea anyone was following, let alone paying attention to, our happy little thread! You seriously get a gold star sticker on your forehead for this one!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!!

I see the source himself has answered.

But may I just enquire why you seem to be indicating that you expect everyone must take a "ontological position"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mercutio
First, why does it matter what I am?

...snip...

Thirdly, Darat! Wow! I had no idea anyone was following, let alone paying attention to, our happy little thread! You seriously get a gold star sticker on your forehead for this one!

Have to be careful sticking that on, it might rub the "A" of my Ameth away!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


I see the source himself has answered.

But may I just enquire why you seem to be indicating that you expect everyone must take a "ontological position"?

Yes, otherwise it's not a actually position they have and they therefore are scarcely in the position to argue against my views on the matter.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes, otherwise it's not a actually position they have and they therefore are scarcely in the position to argue against my views on the matter. As I said before (and you quoted), I only argued your incorrect use of some terms. I can do that from any position. I hope you will recall, I have also defended your view in another thread, many months ago (long enough ago you are forgiven if you don't remember...but I might be able to find it if pressed).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes, otherwise it's not a actually position they have and they therefore are scarcely in the position to argue against my views on the matter.

Why not? You've said before to argue for a view you don't believe in is a good idea.

But back to my question, why do you seem to be expecting that someone must take a "ontological position"?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

OK. Two opposing viewpoints. Let's see the evidence, eh?
To remind the reader--the two viewpoints were "Change your behavior by changing your attitude" and "change your attitude by changing your behavior", advanced in this thread by Ian Rowland and Jeff Corey, respectively. Larsen wants evidence. I'll start with a classic, Festinger and Carlsmith's Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/index.htm) (1959). I offer this because it supports the latter view, but also because it is quite obviously not from the radical behaviorist literature (so I am not accused of cherry-picking from the publications of folks with a dog in this fight). I'll see if I can find links to some of the other lines of research, such as the foot-in-the-door effect, which also support the second of the two viewpoints.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Yeah, I was not impressed with his so-called "motivational" pitch. He said that changing attitudes is the key to changing behavior - he has that bass ackward, and that "visualization" inproves performance. There's no evidence for that.
I dismissed that part of his talk at TAM2 as being half-baked pop psychology to con gullible businesspeople out of big bucks for a "seminar".
But, what the hay. He is a professional trickster.

Beliefs (attitudes) control behavior. I think you have it bass ackwards. If you believe you're a loser with women and a girl suddenly tells you she likes you, you'll think she's trying to trick you. If you believe you're great with women and a girl tells you she can't stand you, you'll think that something's wrong with her, not you, and go on to the next girl. Attitude does control behavior.

Visualization does improve performance, especially if you take "implementation intentions" into account -- ever heard of them?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
To remind the reader--the two viewpoints were "Change your behavior by changing your attitude" and "change your attitude by changing your behavior", advanced in this thread by Ian Rowland and Jeff Corey, respectively. Larsen wants evidence. I'll start with a classic, Festinger and Carlsmith's Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/index.htm) (1959). I offer this because it supports the latter view, but also because it is quite obviously not from the radical behaviorist literature (so I am not accused of cherry-picking from the publications of folks with a dog in this fight). I'll see if I can find links to some of the other lines of research, such as the foot-in-the-door effect, which also support the second of the two viewpoints.

Foot-in-the-door effect works as a consistency effect (see: Cialdini). It's not the behavior that changes the attitude; it's the implicit attitude of being (or wanting to appear to be) a consistent person that does so. The behavior works a leverage point for the lower level attitude change; utilizing the higher level attitude (consistency). Festinger et. al. also works as a consistency effect.

[Ian Rowland]

I don't know everything and I like to learn from people smarter than me. So if any of those present who know more about this subject (the attitude / behaviour relationship) than I do can suggest good foundation texts or sources that I would do well to read, and which won't go sailing miles over my limited intellect, I'd be only too pleased to follow up your suggestions and try to learn something.

I think one of the slight problems creeping into this thread is that people have started trying to deal in absolutes i.e. it is always the case that attitude changes behaviour or vice-versa. This wasn't my contention in my lecture show, and it isn't my point of view.

The example I gave during my (admittedly not very good) show at JREF was of the person who has to prepare for an important exam. If she starts off with the belief that she can't or won't do very well, she probably won't do any of the practical things conducive to success. If she starts off with the belief that success might be a challenge but it's well within her grasp if she puts her mind to it, then she will probably take the right practical steps, such as researching past papers, drawing up a pragmatic study plan and sticking to it, scheduling her time each week to accommodate her study periods, and so on.

I don't think there is anything controversial about this point of view, and indeed I've had feedback from several people who are professionally involved in education who wanted to corroborate the truth of this and to thank me for emphasising it.

You may also say that it's common sense and hardly worth mentioning. Sometimes the value of an idea is not that it is radical or new, but that it is worth stating for those who aren't already hip to it, and worth illustrating or conveying in a new or memorable way.

In any case, this point (attitude/behaviour) was only one very small part of a 90 minute presentation.

[lynne]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland


to prepare for an important exam. If she starts off with the belief that she can't or won't do very well, she probably won't do any of the practical things conducive to success. If she starts off with the belief that success might be a challenge but it's well within her grasp if she puts her mind to it, then she will probably take the right practical steps, such as researching past papers, drawing up a pragmatic study plan and sticking to it, scheduling her time each week to accommodate her study periods, and so on.

I don't think there is anything controversial about this point of view, and indeed I've had feedback from several people who are professionally involved in education who wanted to corroborate the truth of this and to thank me for emphasising it.

You may also say that it's common sense and hardly worth mentioning. .

[lynne]

Sorry - I goofed and sent before I said anything about Ian's comment. Apologies.

I am a specialist in teaching maths and physics (math to the Americans!) - especially in teaching those of high ability. I can confidently claim from watching students over many years, that confidence is not only a part of the preparation, but very much a part of the exam itself. When a student looks at a maths problem and believes they can't do it - the numbers will not talk to them. Sounds crazy - but it works for my students. The task itself will guide a confident student and they will play. That is the key to high achievment in maths. If I can get them to believe they can do it - and there are many techniques for that when they block up - then suddenly they tell me it feels like they are doing a different problem.

As for stating the obvious - it is not obvious even if stated over and over. Each time the block comes it needs to be restated. May I hereby be totally sexist and say this is a much bigger issue for girls in maths, than boys?

I can get better results by convincing a student they can do the task and then letting them struggle with confidence backing them, than I can by teaching a method off pat over and over, which is then useless to them when they get into the exam and the problem set doesn't match those they have worked on in preparation.

I think I'd better get off my hobby horse!

cheers,

Lynne

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland
I don't know everything and I like to learn from people smarter than me. So if any of those present who know more about this subject (the attitude / behaviour relationship) than I do can suggest good foundation texts or sources that I would do well to read, and which won't go sailing miles over my limited intellect, I'd be only too pleased to follow up your suggestions and try to learn something.

I think one of the slight problems creeping into this thread is that people have started trying to deal in absolutes i.e. it is always the case that attitude changes behaviour or vice-versa. This wasn't my contention in my lecture show, and it isn't my point of view.

The example I gave during my (admittedly not very good) show at JREF was of the person who has to prepare for an important exam. If she starts off with the belief that she can't or won't do very well, she probably won't do any of the practical things conducive to success. If she starts off with the belief that success might be a challenge but it's well within her grasp if she puts her mind to it, then she will probably take the right practical steps, such as researching past papers, drawing up a pragmatic study plan and sticking to it, scheduling her time each week to accommodate her study periods, and so on.

I don't think there is anything controversial about this point of view, and indeed I've had feedback from several people who are professionally involved in education who wanted to corroborate the truth of this and to thank me for emphasising it.

You may also say that it's common sense and hardly worth mentioning. Sometimes the value of an idea is not that it is radical or new, but that it is worth stating for those who aren't already hip to it, and worth illustrating or conveying in a new or memorable way.

In any case, this point (attitude/behaviour) was only one very small part of a 90 minute presentation.

I wonder if you've read Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice? I agree that attitude/behavior causality is not one-way; and it's empirically demonstrable that attitude changes the way one evaluates feedback and how one decides which behaviors are possible for oneself.

As far as visualization goes, it works if you use "pseudo-orientation in time" to look back at the steps you will have taken to produce the visualized success. In other words, imagine yourself succeeding at whatever thing it is you want; then look back at the things you did (which you haven't actually done yet) that lead to your success. Those things you did are the implementation; use those to guide how you will act in order to accomplish the task. The concept is "implementation intentions".

[Brown]

When I was a student, I used to tell myself: "They're not going to test you on something that they haven't taught you." This simple reminder is, in itself, a confidence builder. If you go into a test on the subject of Physics, the test questions are not going to pertain to an unfamiliar subject, say, History. So... if you go to class and do the homework, you're going to have a better than fighting chance. And if you are aware that you have a fighting chance, you will perform better.

As a teacher and a tutor, I used to prepare students for tests in Electric Circuits and Electronics. As part of my preparation, I would often present the students with a practice problem that appeared on its face to be IMPOSSIBLE to solve. I would then use this problem to make the following points. (1) Don't "freak out" just because a problem appears to be difficult. Keep your cool. (2) Chances are excellent that it is not as hard as it appears, and the professor included it in the exam because he thought it could be solved in the time allotted. Knowing that the problem is solvable can actually help you solve it. (3) Some problems include irrelevant information, and look difficult because they have red herrings in them. (4) Sometimes the professor presents a problem that requires exactly the same analysis that you are used to, but he presents it in a way that is different from the way problems are presented in the textbook.

When I eventually went on to solve the problem, you could actually hear the students react as one-by-one they understood that the impossible problem turned out to be not so hard after all.

After the actual test, the students would often tell me how having the right attitude helped them be prepared for the odd questions that the professor presented on the exam.

[Clancie]

Posted by Brown

When I was a student, I used to tell myself: "They're not going to test you on something that they haven't taught you" It was a confidence builder.
OT...That's one of the worst things about all this standardized testing as part of "No Child Left Behind"...kids freak out at some of the questions--much of it things they've never seen and aren't really expected to know. They start off right away with their confidence undermined. /OT

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Foot-in-the-door effect works as a consistency effect (see: Cialdini). It's not the behavior that changes the attitude; it's the implicit attitude of being (or wanting to appear to be) a consistent person that does so. The behavior works a leverage point for the lower level attitude change; utilizing the higher level attitude (consistency). Festinger et. al. also works as a consistency effect. Works as a consistency effect? I think a better phrase would be "has been interpreted as a consistency effect." Come on, it has been used as evidence for cognitive dissonance, self-perception, self-monitoring...the bottom line is, in both Foot in the door and counter-attitudinal advocacy, a change in behavior leads to a change in reported attitude. The alleged mechanisms are fascinating, but are full of hypothetical intervening processes that are by no means certain. (until, of course, you can measure implicit attitude prior to any behavior, which is impossible; we know that the behavior of taking a survey can influence your later behaviors)

Cialdini's book is great for this; I would also recommend Fiske and Taylor's "Social Cognition", and to a lesser extent Zimbardo and Leippe's "The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence". I could also recommend some behavioral sources that deny any use for the term "attitude" at all, but these others are more user-friendly.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Works as a consistency effect? I think a better phrase would be "has been interpreted as a consistency effect." Come on, it has been used as evidence for cognitive dissonance, self-perception, self-monitoring...the bottom line is, in both Foot in the door and counter-attitudinal advocacy, a change in behavior leads to a change in reported attitude. The alleged mechanisms are fascinating, but are full of hypothetical intervening processes that are by no means certain. (until, of course, you can measure implicit attitude prior to any behavior, which is impossible; we know that the behavior of taking a survey can influence your later behaviors)

I agree that it's open to interpretation. I also believe that knowing how to use something is more important than knowing why it happens in the first place. The discoveries scientists and non(official)scientists make due to what we now have good reason to think were wrong theories, are still around - they don't vanish (like a cartoon character who realized that gravity means they can't walk on air) just because we realize the theory behind them was wrong. (e.g., the discoveries that came out of Newtonian optics).

Cialdini's book is great for this; I would also recommend Fiske and Taylor's "Social Cognition", and to a lesser extent Zimbardo and Leippe's "The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence". I could also recommend some behavioral sources that deny any use for the term "attitude" at all, but these others are more user-friendly.

I like "Age of Propaganda" as well.

One of the good ideas in Ian Rowland's Cold Reading book is the idea of mindscripts (hmmm..., I wonder if the book he got this idea from had anything to do with NLP.....); telling yourself right before a meeting or date that the other person likes you and that it's easy to be comfortable with the person, etc. That's a good application of creating a good attitude for the purpose at hand. A person with the attitude of "people don't like me" will respond to an ambiguous facial expression differently than a person with the attitude of "people like me". Please explain how behavior alone could ever create an attitude change from "people don't like me" to "people like me". I gather that this was the sort of "mindpower" Rowland was talking about at his presentations.

I don't need scientific studies about this, I can experience personal empirical evidence of the fact that this (and a large number of other related technique) works. And as I've expressed elsewhere, I don't "believe" in scientific studies unless and until I can experience a relevant part of it either personally or vicariously. I encourage you to actually experience; reading scientific articles and studies without reference experiences means you haven't really understood.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I don't need scientific studies about this, I can experience personal empirical evidence of the fact that this (and a large number of other related technique) works. And as I've expressed elsewhere, I don't "believe" in scientific studies unless and until I can experience a relevant part of it either personally or vicariously. I encourage you to actually experience; reading scientific articles and studies without reference experiences means you haven't really understood.
Well, so much for that silly "Science of Behavior" stuff, then.
Introspect, introspec, introspect!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I don't need scientific studies about this, I can experience personal empirical evidence of the fact that this (and a large number of other related technique) works. And as I've expressed elsewhere, I don't "believe" in scientific studies unless and until I can experience a relevant part of it either personally or vicariously. I encourage you to actually experience; reading scientific articles and studies without reference experiences means you haven't really understood. I find this a fascinating statement, coming from someone who seems to be well-versed in social cognition. It is patently obvious from the literature that our perceptions & attributions are biased, in ways that are quite obvious when examined experimentally but which may be completely invisible to the individual perceiver.

I was ready to swear in court that a particular man had mugged me. I was quite wrong, as it turned out. The man I was ready to testify against was taller and bigger than the one who had mugged me. This is, of course, consistent with the literature--someone who beats you up is generally bigger in your memory than they are in real life. In this case, relying on personal experience would have put the wrong man behind bars.

If you rely on your own personal experience even in cases where your studies suggest there are better ways of determining the truth (think base-rate fallacy and Bayesian inference), then I suggest that you "haven't really understood".

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

One of the good ideas in Ian Rowland's Cold Reading book is the idea of mindscripts (hmmm..., I wonder if the book he got this idea from had anything to do with NLP.....);
For the record, I didn't knowingly get the idea of mind scripts from any book or other source. In fact, I don't honestly know where it came from. It feels to me like it's just an idea distilled from many years' experience, but I could of course be wrong. I've read so many books down the years, and talked with so many great people, that it's entirely possible I've assimilated the idea from somewhere else without realising it. If I could give due credit to a source, I would.

The only book on NLP I've ever read is 'Frogs Into Princes' by Bandler and Grinder. Atrociously written, of course, but an interesting book nonetheless. No mention there of mind scripts or anything similar.

My sincere thanks to all who have suggested good reading material pertaining to attitude and behaviour. I look forward to learning more about this fascinating subject. Next question: is there a web forum devoted to these kinds of issues, or which helps someone like me get to grips with all this delightful trade jargon ('consistency effect', 'Foot in the door', 'cognitive dissonance')? I will need to find a mentor who can help me get on the right track with this.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ian, As my colleague said earlier:
...the bottom line is, in both Foot in the door and counter-attitudinal advocacy, a change in behavior leads to a change in reported attitude. The alleged mechanisms are fascinating, but are full of hypothetical intervening processes that are by no means certain. (until, of course, you can measure implicit attitude prior to any behavior, which is impossible; we know that the behavior of taking a survey can influence your later behaviors)

Cialdini's book is great for this; I would also recommend Fiske and Taylor's "Social Cognition", and to a lesser extent Zimbardo and Leippe's "The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence". I could also recommend some behavioral sources that deny any use for the term "attitude" at all, but these others are more user-friendly.
Most social psychology texts discuss these techniques, but waffle about the underlying mecanisms.
For example: Foot in the door- get someone to agree to comply with a trivial request and they will be more likely to comply with a greater request later. This is similar to "shaping" in the jargon of operant conditioning.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland

My sincere thanks to all who have suggested good reading material pertaining to attitude and behaviour. I look forward to learning more about this fascinating subject. Next question: is there a web forum devoted to these kinds of issues, or which helps someone like me get to grips with all this delightful trade jargon ('consistency effect', 'Foot in the door', 'cognitive dissonance')? I will need to find a mentor who can help me get on the right track with this. Ian, I'll poke around a bit and find you a good website...but failing that, if we can't find anything better I'd be happy to send you my copies of some of these books (in exchange for a copy of yours?) [/weasel mode]

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ian, I'll poke around a bit and find you a good website...but failing that, if we can't find anything better I'd be happy to send you my copies of some of these books (in exchange for a copy of yours?) [/weasel mode]
Hi Mercutio. I'd like to take this further. You've elected not to receive emails via this forum and I don't want to use the PM system, so could you please email me via my website www.ianrowland.com ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I don't "believe" in scientific studies unless and until I can experience a relevant part of it either personally or vicariously. I encourage you to actually experience; reading scientific articles and studies without reference experiences means you haven't really understood.
Scenario I: Suggestologist in Space.

"I don't care what the calculations show. I'm opening the d*** shuttle door. I don't believe in science unless I experience i t m y s e l f !"

Scenario II: Suggestologist in the Deep Ocean.

"Look, I really need to go to surface now. Don't give me that crap about "the bends." I don't believe in science unless..."


Scenario III: Suggestologist atop the Sears Tower.

"How do you know I'll fall 130 stories? I've never fallen that far before. What makes you think I'll fall that far now? And, even if I do, how do you know I'll die? Have you died this way? No. Have I? No. Either of us have friends who have died because they fell 130 stories? No. No. No."

Suggestologist, it sounds like you've confused "epistemology" with "ways to win the Darwin award."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
And as I've expressed elsewhere, I don't "believe" in scientific studies unless and until I can experience a relevant part of it either personally or vicariously. I encourage you to actually experience; reading scientific articles and studies without reference experiences means you haven't really understood.

Have you ever travelled by airplane? Train? Car? How can you, because you would have to "believe" in the scientific studies that enable engineers to build airplanes, trains, cars?

Have you ever been sick and had to rely on what a doctor told you? How can you, because you would have to "believe" in the scientific studies that enable doctors to cure you?

If not for scientific studies, chances are you'd be dead by now.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I find this a fascinating statement, coming from someone who seems to be well-versed in social cognition. It is patently obvious from the literature that our perceptions & attributions are biased, in ways that are quite obvious when examined experimentally but which may be completely invisible to the individual perceiver.

I was ready to swear in court that a particular man had mugged me. I was quite wrong, as it turned out. The man I was ready to testify against was taller and bigger than the one who had mugged me. This is, of course, consistent with the literature--someone who beats you up is generally bigger in your memory than they are in real life. In this case, relying on personal experience would have put the wrong man behind bars.

I see this the other way. Your experience of being ready to testify in court is evidence that you didn't really believe the "literature". It is your personal experience of being mistaken in this particular case, that makes you "believe" the literature more than you had before. This is what I mean by "you won't really believe any particular thing until you have a good reference experience for it".

If you rely on your own personal experience even in cases where your studies suggest there are better ways of determining the truth (think base-rate fallacy and Bayesian inference), then I suggest that you "haven't really understood".

Again, when I read about things such as base-rate fallacy, I have to find reference experiences in my memories, otherwise there is no way I can truly say I have understood. This is why some books on human decision making and heuristics ask you questions (such as that confirmation bias 4 card test, can't remember the name but it's been discussed on these forums recently) before explaining the phenomenon: this empirical testing gives the reader good reference experiences of being wrong due to the phenomenon. This type of understanding is far more useful than simply describing how others' biases work.

I agree that our perceptions and attributions are biased. How do I come to believe this? By finding reference experiences in my own memory pool. When it comes to vicarious experience from books, TV, etc; this gets more complicated (to explain - not to do), but it is still anchored in my personal experience.

The farther away something is from personal experience, the less you can say that you actually "believe" it; the more questions/skepticism you should have about it.

To Jeff Corey, et. al.: You're jumping to conclusions without hypothesis testing what you think I meant.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
To Jeff Corey, et. al.: You're jumping to conclusions without hypothesis testing what you think I meant.
I don't understand what you mean by this. What sense of "hypothesis testing" are you using?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

I don't understand what you mean by this. What sense of "hypothesis testing" are you using?

Well, you think you know what I meant regarding the primacy of personal experience -- you have a hypothesis, but you don't really know that your hypothesis is correct until you test it (e.g, by asking me questions). Is that unclear?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland

For the record, I didn't knowingly get the idea of mind scripts from any book or other source. In fact, I don't honestly know where it came from. It feels to me like it's just an idea distilled from many years' experience, but I could of course be wrong. I've read so many books down the years, and talked with so many great people, that it's entirely possible I've assimilated the idea from somewhere else without realising it. If I could give due credit to a source, I would.

Source amnesia, eh? :)

The only book on NLP I've ever read is 'Frogs Into Princes' by Bandler and Grinder. Atrociously written, of course, but an interesting book nonetheless. No mention there of mind scripts or anything similar.

It's easier to understand if you've seen or heard Bandler and/or Grinder before reading it. It is an edited composite transcript of their (late 70's) workshops. The first time I read it, I was 15 and didn't really understand how to use any of it. A good introduction to NLP is O'Connor's book. I've recently re-read "Heart of the Mind" by the Andreas'es, which has good application examples (and when dealing with medical illness, they are always careful to make sure that the client has taken full advantage of medical resources); but that might not make much sense if you don't understand the basics.

My sincere thanks to all who have suggested good reading material pertaining to attitude and behaviour. I look forward to learning more about this fascinating subject. Next question: is there a web forum devoted to these kinds of issues, or which helps someone like me get to grips with all this delightful trade jargon ('consistency effect', 'Foot in the door', 'cognitive dissonance')? I will need to find a mentor who can help me get on the right track with this.

Cialdini's book is great. "The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making" by Scott Plous is also good.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Have you ever travelled by airplane? Train? Car? How can you, because you would have to "believe" in the scientific studies that enable engineers to build airplanes, trains, cars?

I don't have to believe in theory. I can believe the experience of seeing cars drive on roads; people riding in trains and cars; planes taking off.

What does the scientific theory have to do with belief in the utility of the product? The theory may be great, and the product may be crap. The theory may be crap, and the product may be great. If I want to travel, I evaluate the operation of the product (car, train, plane), not the theories that made it possible to conceptualize.

Have you ever been sick and had to rely on what a doctor told you?

When one asks a question that begins "Have you ever..."; the listener has to think of personal experience in order to evaluate the question.

How can you, because you would have to "believe" in the scientific studies that enable doctors to cure you?

You're thinking of belief as something that blocks hypothesis testing. You also seem to think that belief is an either-or thing. I don't think of it in those ways.

If not for scientific studies, chances are you'd be dead by now.

In order to evaluate that statement, I have to think of a personal experience where that might have happened. However, since when I was very young, I had no power to reject medicines offered by my parents; and so I have built-in reference experiences that indicate both the efficacy and inefficacy as well as side-effects of medicines; in any case.

[CFLarsen]

Suggestologist,

I think you are missing my point: How do you think the engineers got to making those planes, cars and trains? How do you think the doctors got to the point where they could tell you what medicines to take? How do you think the pharmaceutical companies got to make the drugs that has saved your life, and other millions of people?

Through the theories, tested scientifically.

Surely, you don't think that modern knowledge came by through experience only?? The 747 was built through trial and error?

You have a very limited view of how the universe works.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Suggestologist,

I think you are missing my point: How do you think the engineers got to making those planes, cars and trains? How do you think the doctors got to the point where they could tell you what medicines to take? How do you think the pharmaceutical companies got to make the drugs that has saved your life, and other millions of people?

You're changing the question. You asked how I could ride a plane without understanding the theory; not how I could design one. Please make your questions ask what you mean them to ask. :)

If I were a designer, I would have to know, among other things - the properties of metal; how it can be bent, shaped, formed, cut, connected, etc. Learning about such things from books will not provide the complete picture; only actually seeing it done or even better, doing it yourself will give the designer the full picture of what is possible.

The 777 was built by computer, but it still had to be flown in actual conditions to work out the bugs. The computer designs for the metal parts still had errors that were only found when actual people were assembling the thing.

The same dynamics are true in medicine. You don't know what a medicine will actually do until you test it on actual people; the FDA does not approve theories, it approves products.

Through the theories, tested scientifically.

Surely, you don't think that modern knowledge came by through experience only?? The 747 was built through trial and error?

It was built through trial and error; along with accumulated experience. The people building from accumulated non-personal experience, I maintain, do not have good reason to believe the theories they are using until they actually use it to make a working product.

You have a very limited view of how the universe works.

The universe needs no theories to work. People need theories to productively guide the development of their personal experience.

[Anders W. Bonde]

The 777 was built by computer, but it still had to be flown in actual conditions to work out the bugs. The computer designs for the metal parts still had errors that were only found when actual people were assembling the thing.

A minor correction: The 777, or anything else for that matter, was not built by computer. Computers are designed and built by humans (and by tools and machines designed and built by etc.), and they are used to facilitate the design and analysis tasks by performing trivial and repetitive tasks very quickly and very accurately, which increasingly enables execution of more, and more accurate, design/analyses iterations, within a given time frame, than what was possible in the past due to the continual improvements of computer technology AND ever expanding design data bases (applied experience). Initial sketches, even for the 777 were done by hand (even though Boeing probably does not advertise that fact), by humans. The creative side of all engineering and design is still in the realm of humans, not computers.

As to errors in the computer assisted designs they are always human in nature: Bad design, something overlooked (by humans), bad software, poor procedures etc. Computers don't make mistakes - they only do what they are programmed to do, and it is us humans who decide what's a mistake and what isn't. Computers don't come up with new ideas (yet). Humans do.

"Working out bugs" can also be called "validation of theories and tools".

Also, you cannot design and/or build, say an airplane, with your own experience alone - you have to make use of the experience of others as well, which is what you do by reading books, taking courses, meeting with peers, relying on design and analysis software etc. One does not exclude the other - you need both "forms" of experience.

BTW: The old joke about modern cars: "Designed by robots, built be robots, driven by idiots" (dang - that's the second time today I use that ad hominem... - is it becoming a bad habit, I wonder?) ;)

[Anders W. Bonde]

Correction of human error: "...by robots..." - not: "...be robots..."

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde


A minor correction: The 777, or anything else for that matter, was not built by computer. Computers are designed and built by humans (and by tools and machines designed and built by etc.), and they are used to facilitate the design and analysis tasks by performing trivial and repetitive tasks very quickly and very accurately, which increasingly enables execution of more, and more accurate, design/analyses iterations, within a given time frame, than what was possible in the past due to the continual improvements of computer technology AND ever expanding design data bases (applied experience). Initial sketches, even for the 777 were done by hand (even though Boeing probably does not advertise that fact), by humans. The creative side of all engineering and design is still in the realm of humans, not computers.

As to errors in the computer assisted designs they are always human in nature: Bad design, something overlooked (by humans), bad software, poor procedures etc. Computers don't make mistakes - they only do what they are programmed to do, and it is us humans who decide what's a mistake and what isn't. Computers don't come up with new ideas (yet). Humans do.

"Working out bugs" can also be called "validation of theories and tools".

Also, you cannot design and/or build, say an airplane, with your own experience alone - you have to make use of the experience of others as well, which is what you do by reading books, taking courses, meeting with peers, relying on design and analysis software etc. One does not exclude the other - you need both "forms" of experience.

BTW: The old joke about modern cars: "Designed by robots, built be robots, driven by idiots" (dang - that's the second time today I use that ad hominem... - is it becoming a bad habit, I wonder?) ;)

I agree, you need both types of experience. You wouldn't want a surgeon who has never dissected anything more complicated than a roundworm. And you wouldn't want a surgeon who's dissected everything, but never read anything about how to do medical procedures with it. My point has been that you cannot truly believe that your book learning is correct without actual experience in using that book learning; or without retroactively applying book learning to something you've already done/experienced.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Well, you think you know what I meant regarding the primacy of personal experience -- you have a hypothesis, but you don't really know that your hypothesis is correct until you test it (e.g, by asking me questions). Is that unclear?
I have no hypothesis, just your statement. "I don't need scientific studies about this..."
I'll take your word for the fact that you feel you don't need scientific studies.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

I have no hypothesis, just your statement. "I don't need scientific studies about this..."
I'll take your word for the fact that you feel you don't need scientific studies.

Then what was all of that "introspection" stuff about? :)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Then what was all of that "introspection" stuff about? :)
Obviously a waste of time.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Obviously a waste of time.

Obviously a waste of time to ask you what you meant, you mean?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I see this the other way. Your experience of being ready to testify in court is evidence that you didn't really believe the "literature". It is your personal experience of being mistaken in this particular case, that makes you "believe" the literature more than you had before. This is what I mean by "you won't really believe any particular thing until you have a good reference experience for it".
um...in this case, the mugging happened well before I learned the social cognition behind it. The experience itself was not sufficient to really "get" this concept. Many people have had the experience of, say, a cold reading, but it would seem quite rare that this is enough to "get" the concept.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing, but it rarely allows for controlled conditions or manipulation of variables. We make a decision and live by it; without benefit of a control group, we have no way of knowing what would have happen had we chosen differently.

What we learn from our own experience we learn haphazardly; the structure imposed by the scientific method is what allows us to progress.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
um...in this case, the mugging happened well before I learned the social cognition behind it. The experience itself was not sufficient to really "get" this concept. Many people have had the experience of, say, a cold reading, but it would seem quite rare that this is enough to "get" the concept.

Was it a good reference experience when you actually learned about the concept? Would you say you got a better understanding of it than someone who was just trying to memorize it for a test?

Personal experience is a wonderful thing, but it rarely allows for controlled conditions or manipulation of variables. We make a decision and live by it; without benefit of a control group, we have no way of knowing what would have happen had we chosen differently.

Perhaps I should ask CFLarsen's style of questions: How could you open the door to your home to get out before getting the scientific evidence that turning the knob works? How could you drive your car before getting scientific studies that confirm the efficacy of depressing the accelerator pedal with your foot?

What we learn from our own experience we learn haphazardly; the structure imposed by the scientific method is what allows us to progress.

How did you come to believe this?

[Suggestologist]

Here's an example of silliness with science:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040315072520.htm

"Scientists Confirm Phenomenon of Falling Beer Bubbles"

Now, did the people who noticed this happening really need scientists to CONfirm this for them before they could be sure of it? The answer is no.

I've seen a similar phenomenon while eating soup, BTW.

From the article:
''It's just paying attention to the world around you and trying to figure out why things happen the way they do,'' Alexander added. ''In that case, anyone that goes into a pub and orders a pint of Guinness is a scientist.''