Hitting a brick wall

[Rascal]

Hey folks,

Long time skeptic, first time poster.

(OK, quick skeptic bio: I've been keeping up with Randi for nearly 30 [!!] years; have known about things like the Skeptics Society for some time but never got around to really getting involved until fairly recently; attended TAM2 and had a dandy time, especially when I got to share the stage with Julia Sweeney during Banachek's performance.)

Anyway, the thing that has compelled me to delurk and make this first post is an incident that happened last night. My wife and I were over at a friend's house for dinner along with two other couples who we had not met before. The first ten minutes or so were filled with standard dinner chat, until Liz drastically changed the subject and went off in a whole new direction.

[ Disclaimer. Her name wasn't Liz, but I'll be damned if I can remember what it really is. I am absolutely horrible at remembering names until I've met someone about 10 times. But she kind of looks like a Liz I used to know so I'll use that. And for kicks let's call her husband Xavier.]

Liz was going nonstop with a meandering discussion of energy fields, touch therepy, homeopathy and all those lovely things. All that I probably could have tuned out, but it became harder to ignore when she launched into the inevitable attack on *science* and how it is closed to these very real things that people have known about for thousands of years. And by the way, I put the asterisks around *science* to denote that snear that crossed her face whenever she said the word.

It was though Why People Believe Weird Things had been turned into a play and I was in the front row of the opening night show. But still, I was wrestling with that decision about whether to get on stage and attempt to interject a bit of reason into the performance, or just continue to be the polite dinner guest and hope that the conversation turns back to Janet Jackson's breast.

But then she went a bit too far for me. She got into the topic of mystic healers and the amazing way they can just reach right into your body and extract the very thing that is making you ill. At this point I had no choice but to gently point out that this is an old magicians trick and that no healer has ever been proven to be authentic. That's when Xavier finally piped up and said "That's just a rumor! The healers are real!"

It turns out that Xavier knows someone who actually went to a healer and had a lump of bloody tissue extracted from her knee. And that, my friends is all the proof he needed. I asked if her knee problems had been documented by x-rays or MRI before and after the "surgery" and he said that "oh, I'm sure they were." In other words, no. I asked if the patient kept the tissue that was removed, and well, no, she didn't. When I pointed out that a very simple tissue test to verify that the mass actually belonged to the person would go a long way towards validating these claims, Liz began speaking to me like I was a six-year-old child saying things like "I respect your skeptical viewpoint, but..."

I thought I would try one final thing. I said, "OK, which is the more likely scenario: That someone is simply duplicating a trick that many magicians do in their acts, or that someone actually has the power to open a person's body, remove tissue, and heal the incision area?" When Xavier said that the latter was the more likely scenario, I knew I was up against a brick wall.

Oh, who am I kidding. I knew I was up against a brick wall the moment I opened my mouth but I really wanted the practice. Everything turned out OK... I found some way to segue into a new topic and we resumed our polite dinner banter.

So here's the question -- what is your personal breaking point? When do you feel compelled to step in and say "uh, wait a minute..."? How many people would pay $39.95/month to have Randi on retainer, at-the-ready to answer the phone and take on your side in a conversation?

[espritch]

I was talking to a lady that works at my office one day and happened to mention evolution. She promptly informed me that her ancestor weren't monkeys. My immediate thought was to respond with “Oh, that’s right. Your ancestors were a lump of clay and a spare rib. I can certainly see how that’s much more reasonable.” However, as she is an otherwise decent person and I didn’t really see much to be gained by arguing the point, I just let it drop.

I generally find it best to avoid discussions involving religion. People take it personally and feeling will be hurt. With regard to other irrational beliefs, I’m much more willing to confront them. In the end, though, it’s almost never a hill to die on.

[Powa]

I don't have much patience with such matters. When I talk to people with silly beliefs I just try to joke casually about their beliefs (trying not to hurt their feelings) and don't persue it very far (hoping that no one notices the steam coming out of my ears).

[Monketey Ghost]

I'd guess Randi would have been a complete ass about it, and the meal would have been ruined for all.
Your brand of skepticism, though perhaps ineffectual (those brick walls are there to stop knowledge from getting through) is IMO the right course.

All one can do is try. Politely.

[Mercutio]

I try to let the punishment fit the crime. Usually that means I am very polite and friendly, and I will gently lead them to the conclusion that a) I actually do know what I am talking about--both sides of it, and I know their side better than they do themselves, and b) that there are usually perfectly good reasons for their believing what they do, but that this in no way means that they are correct, and c) that while some of the things they speak of are simply matters of faith, others are testable questions and can be empirically examined--and that usually they have been, and I know the studies. (just for the record, if I do not have all the ammunition I need, I am unlikely to jump into the argument. This is why I don't argue politics here:D )

I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone. On the other hand, sometimes they will up the ante, and (again, depending on the circumstances) I will be forced to eviscerate them. Again, always from a position of knowledge and always with references at the ready.

I suppose it goes without saying that it is extremely important to listen carefully during all this...you must address what they say, not the stereotype of their position. Besides, if you address something other than what they say, they will remember that you sidestepped their issue.

[iain]

I don't want to force my views on other people any more than I would want other's religious views forced on me.

I'll often mention factual information to people or just let them know about alternative interpretations; but I don't push it. I would never push atheism on people - we're all entitled to our beliefs and opinions. Anyway, it would just put people's backs up and probably be counterproductive.

[uneasy]

I have a tactic that I'm not sure works, but I'm sticking to it because it's easy. If someone annoys me with that stuff, I punish them by depriving them of my charming company. The drawback is that considering their lack of reasoning powers, they probably never connect that fact that they spout nonsense with the fact that I never talk to them again. People are still spouting strange beliefs all around me, so maybe I'm not as charming as I think. :)

There's not much that can be done in most cases, so I take the easy way out. Children are where it gets more complicated. I feel more responsibility to talk with them. Then I take the tactic that any truth might take hold someday, so it's worth some effort.

[jcon96]

S'okay, my wife had to about drag me out of brunch this morning. While we were quietly eating our meal, a group of 6 were seated at the table next to us, and immediately began having a loud conversation on various topics such as:faith healing and the godless heathens race to suppress it, those damned homos wantin to marry like "real" people, how si is so pervasive in society and how the "lord" is gonna come clean it up, and how themdamned "liberal eggheads" gonna allow the good xtian folks to get run outta town and how they were the oppresed minority!

Needless to say,I was chewing my tounge off and was about ready to stand up,walk over and announce myself as a heathen liberal egghead and ask them to please keep their voices down! The other half must have noticed my expression cause all of a sudden she grabs my wrist and whispers "don't even think it!":D Guess I was just a little too obvious. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent this. I loe the fact the xtians moan and cry how they are the oppressed minority!

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm not very good at keeping my mouth shut. I do sometimes come across as being a bit fierce, or at least so my wife says.

I think next time this situation arises I will just mention that what they are saying offends me and ask them not to discuss such issues. If it were the other way round I am sure I would be expected to respect such a request.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Rascal
It turns out that Xavier knows someone who actually went to a healer and had a lump of bloody tissue extracted from her knee.

As Jean Shepherd once pointed out, the saddest words of tongue or pen are not "It might have been" but rather "What I should have said was..."

That having been said, what I usually say in this kind of situation is "What were the lab results?"

"Huh?"

"The results of submitting the excised tissue to a lab analysis, especially to determine whether it was cancerous. What were the lab results? Was it cancerous or benign?"

"Um, there was no lab analysis."

"What, no lab analysis? There's always a lab analysis, no matter how the tissue was removed. That's because, even if the mass was removed, it might have shed cancerous cells that could grow in a completely different system of the the body!"

"Um, er."

You can ?robably take it on from here.

[Rascal]

Originally posted by epepke


That having been said, what I usually say in this kind of situation is "What were the lab results?"



Yep, that's the direction I was hoping to go by asking if the "patient" had kept what was "removed." But to Xavier, the only proof that mattered was that her mysterious knee pain was now gone. Oh, and that she actually saw the healer stick his fingers into her knee (emphasis his).

Oh well. I knew I didn't stand a chance of getting them to see just how riduculous this all was, but I couldn't just sit there and nod.

[Toastrider]

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said 'A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.'

Zealotry -- whether it's new-age gibberish or old-age fundamentalism -- is virtually impenetrable to logic, reason, and fact. You might as well try to puncture Chobham tank armor (used on Abrams MBTs) with a 9mm pistol.

The only thing that can shake a zealot is a direct, massive blow at the very foundation -- and that's rare. You have to hit them with such a mass of directly contradicting data that they HAVE to acknowledge it -- and even then, they might shrug it off. It's a problem similar to one I had in high school, when I tried to explain that through carbon-dating analysis, the Earth HAD to be older than 4 or 6 thousand years. 'Oh, God made it that way to weed out the unfaithful.'

Now, I was (still am) a semi-faithful Roman Catholic, and even -I- didn't buy that malarkey. I believe my exact words were 'Excuse me, did you miss the part about lead us not into temptation?'.

--Toasty

[iain]

Originally posted by Toastrider
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said 'A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.'

Zealotry -- whether it's new-age gibberish or old-age fundamentalism -- is virtually impenetrable to logic, reason, and fact. You might as well try to puncture Chobham tank armor (used on Abrams MBTs) with a 9mm pistol.True - though I think most opinions people have with any emotional conviction fall into this category whether it's belief in faith-healers or a heart-felt opinion on whether gun control is right or wrong.

I've found that conversations with people about things I've felt strongly about have sometimes changed my opinions; but often only days, months or years later. Never feel that a discussion has been a complete waste because the person hasn't instantly seen the light and begged you for forgiveness of their wrongheaded ways - who know what will happen down the line?

edited to add - just looked back and I seem to be contradicting my earlier post in this thread. Oh well - guess I've still got some work to do to get my opinions on this issue straightened out :(

[sackett]

Originally posted by iain
. . Never feel that a discussion has been a complete waste because the person hasn't instantly seen the light and begged you for forgiveness of their wrongheaded ways - who know what will happen down the line? [/i]

A good point. Few people will change their minds on the spot -- of course -I- would, but -I'm- wonderfully honest and intellectual, not to mention humble -- but unless they make a conscious effort not to, they'll go away and think about what you said.

A tactic I try when circustances are right, i.e., when I'm not likely to get punched in the kisser, is to say, "Well hell, if you can believe anything you want, why don't you believe that rainwater is beer? You wouldn't have to drink it, but I'd be grateful, c'mon, be a buddy --" until they get disgusted and drop the subject. This may not shake the foundations of their faith, but it can start a few cracks.

[uneasy]

I came across this quote from Thomas Jefferson this morning, and it made me think of this thread.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I try to let the punishment fit the crime. Usually that means I am very polite and friendly, and I will gently lead them to the conclusion that a) I actually do know what I am talking about--both sides of it, and I know their side better than they do themselves, and b) that there are usually perfectly good reasons for their believing what they do, but that this in no way means that they are correct, and c) that while some of the things they speak of are simply matters of faith, others are testable questions and can be empirically examined--and that usually they have been, and I know the studies. (just for the record, if I do not have all the ammunition I need, I am unlikely to jump into the argument. This is why I don't argue politics here:D )

I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone. On the other hand, sometimes they will up the ante, and (again, depending on the circumstances) I will be forced to eviscerate them. Again, always from a position of knowledge and always with references at the ready.

I suppose it goes without saying that it is extremely important to listen carefully during all this...you must address what they say, not the stereotype of their position. Besides, if you address something other than what they say, they will remember that you sidestepped their issue.
Yeah, I figured you to take the mercutingratiating (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870329287&highlight=mercutingratiate#post1870329287) path. You're so damn nice. I would be tempted to do something like going along with them, supporting their stories and adding my own, which got ever wilder, ("And then the healer reached inside his head and pulled out his brain. He swapped the left and right lobes, and after that, his scizophrenia was cured!") There would have to be some point at which they realized that they were being mocked, but then they would also have to realize that they had been very gullible up to that point. Then you might gently ask, "why did you believe me? It was obviously impossible stuff?"

[Loon]

Originally posted by Toastrider
The only thing that can shake a zealot is a direct, massive blow at the very foundation -- and that's rare. You have to hit them with such a mass of directly contradicting data that they HAVE to acknowledge it -- and even then, they might shrug it off.

I think this is why a lot people continue to believe weird things.

Start with normal things:

Lots of people truly believe that Bush will be relected. A roughly similar number truly believe that Kerry will be elected. One group will be hit with massive contradictory evidence at the beginning of November. That's because both groups have a highly falsifiable belief- for one side, there will be no excuses, reasons, or benefits to continue believing.

Another example of a falsifiable and therefore perishable belief: "God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Now take something like "psychic surgery." You can get plenty of evidence *suggesting* that it's crap. But you won't find much that directly refutes it. And you certainly won't find anything that has the visceral and emotional impact of the stories that lead to the belief. Even if they witness a surgery failing, they can say "well, nothing is completely perfect- the surgeon is human, he makes mistakes."

The "contradictory" part is easy. The "massive" part is damn near impossible.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Rascal


Yep, that's the direction I was hoping to go by asking if the "patient" had kept what was "removed." But to Xavier, the only proof that mattered was that her mysterious knee pain was now gone. Oh, and that she actually saw the healer stick his fingers into her knee (emphasis his).

Yeah, but there's a kind of knack to doing this. I've worked with schizophrenics, so I'm pretty good at not questioning beliefs directly. Instead, if you're dealing with ostensibly normal people who are probably not going to become violent, you have to have a couple of levels of indirection.

Which is why I suggested "what were the lab results" rather than "what happened to the tissue." Because it requires, or at least gives the person an opportunity to think. "OK, lab results. Of what? Maybe the tissue. Hmm... what happened to the tissue?" Etc. and so on and so forth.

You have to let people come up with the answer themselves, or else is didn't work.

Different but not entirely unrelated anecdote. At the house where I lived in college, somebody decided to invite some people over and show Faces of Death. Maybe you've seen it; it's a really dumb shock movie. Nothing wrong with shock movies, but it contained a lot of bogus nonsense that for some reason a lot of people took seriously.

There was one scene with some really great cinematography of someone who had fallen down a cave. Pretty good special effects. I mean, it was a good set, comparable to anything in Fantastic Voyage. My girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off, which annoyed some of the Gen-X members present. So I freeze-framed it. (It was my VCR anyway.) It was really quite an good set, but it looked like an ant farm, and the cover shot showed the whole cave from the rescuers down to the victim.

I simply asked, "Who is holding the camera?"

One of the Gen-X members said, "Well, maybe they dropped the camera down."

I said, "OK, maybe someone dropped a camera down, during a rescue operation, and it landed just right to show a nice cinematic cover shot. But isn't there supposed to be, like, some rock there? We can see the whole scene, from the top to the bottom. Why don't they just throw a rope ladder down and not go back and forth in the cave?"

Not too long later, these Gen-X kids were actually competing with each other to see who could pick out the most flaws in the storytelling.

I considered that a success.

[Oleron]

My anecdote is from a couple of years ago when I visited Stonehenge on a tour with a bus full of new age types. Nice people, just a bit too eager to believe whatever they're told.

Our guide did the usual dowsing tricks, finding ley-lines all around the stones. I politely mentioned the ideomotor effect as a possible explanation for his 'discovery' and was immediately identified as the token skeptic in their midst.

After being patronised for my sad world view on the way home on the bus I re-stated my view that the dowsing rods weren't picking up on ley-lines or any other source of energy.
Then, as a throwaway comment really, I mentioned that the only energy source in the circle might be the tiny residual radioactive decay of the elements in the stones. (I'd seen a geiger counter passed over granite before and knew there was a detectable level of radiation emitting from certain rock types). I really wasn't sure whether this was the case or not with the Stonehenge stones but the party jumped on this idea and within 5 minutes had accepted this dubious science as the basis for a whole new theory about ley-lines!

I gave up at that point, realising I was actually adding to their belief system! Oops.

[Rascal]

Originally posted by Loon

Another example of a falsifiable and therefore perishable belief: "God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."


That, BTW, is my single favorite line from all of television history.

[Zep]

What really needs to done is NOT to try and overthrow an entrenched idea like Samson pulling down the temple, but to continue to add cracks in the foundation so it falls all by itself. It may take a bit longer that way, but it's a heck of a lot easier to do.

A good example is the "What were the lab results?" question. You haven't invalidated their ideas, but you have introduced doubt. And doubt is good. Doubt is your friend. And also remember that these people suck up these ideas, ANY ideas, like a sponge, so the doubt gets sucked up too.

So, in this case, they will have the psychic surgeon doing his stuff, but no lab tests like they always do - something not gelling here, so just repeat the process next time round.

"Did you find out why they never do lab tests after psychic surgery, Fred? How about the follow-up X-rays to compare to the pre-surgery X-rays, like all cancer hospitals do?"

Next time around...

"No lab tests, no X-rays, huh? So are you SURE that the psychic surgeon got ALL the cancer out of you? Aren't you worried about metastesis (spreading) of what he might have left behind to the rest of your body? Been filling well lately?"

By this time the guy may have significant worries and could go see a REAL doc!

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by epepke


Yeah, but there's a kind of knack to doing this. I've worked with schizophrenics, so I'm pretty good at not questioning beliefs directly. Instead, if you're dealing with ostensibly normal people who are probably not going to become violent, you have to have a couple of levels of indirection.

You mean, you need to make presuppositions; and then generate questions based on them?

The presuppositions in this case are: the tissue WAS extracted; it was then sent to the lab for analysis.

Presupposing these two "facts", the logical question is then "what were the lab results?" -- great!

This type of thought process can be useful for hypnotists; right Mercutio?

Which is why I suggested "what were the lab results" rather than "what happened to the tissue." Because it requires, or at least gives the person an opportunity to think. "OK, lab results. Of what? Maybe the tissue. Hmm... what happened to the tissue?" Etc. and so on and so forth.

I really don't understand the connection to the film you wrote about...

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I try to let the punishment fit the crime.

Tit-for-tat strategy, eh? :)

Usually that means I am very polite and friendly, and I will gently lead them to the conclusion that a) I actually do know what I am talking about--both sides of it, and I know their side better than they do themselves,

Wow, you mean you actually try to understand how they, as an individual human person, have come to believe something? How novel.

and b) that there are usually perfectly good reasons for their believing what they do, but that this in no way means that they are correct, and

So you presuppose positive intent -- that's an NLP presupposition though -- and you know what they say about NLP presuppositions. :) You also presuppose that the reason they have learned what they have is that they are intelligent and have simply not seen all the evidence -- I gather.

Just like NLP presuppositions, yours are useful; it doesn't matter whether they are "true".

c) that while some of the things they speak of are simply matters of faith, others are testable questions and can be empirically examined--and that usually they have been, and I know the studies. (just for the record, if I do not have all the ammunition I need, I am unlikely to jump into the argument. This is why I don't argue politics here:D )

You're not familiar with the FFM (five factor model of personality) which has been used to show that conservatives are consistently low in "Openness" (one of the five factors: "OCEAN")?

You have a good strategy. It does seem limiting, to have to have the scientific evidence available at the tip of the mind at all times though. Too much preparation for most people to use it that way, don't you think?

I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone. On the other hand, sometimes they will up the ante, and (again, depending on the circumstances) I will be forced to eviscerate them. Again, always from a position of knowledge and always with references at the ready.

They escalate, you escalate right back: tit-for-tat. Also a good strategy for flirting with the ladies, I've found. :)

If they're upping the ante, you may not have established adequate rapport before challenging. Develop more "we space"; use diffusion -- which is a way to establish criterial rapport -- which is to say: You and the person are really both after the same thing at a higher (logical) level. That higher thing may be good health, or finding water for drilling wells faster :), etc. Higher beliefs can also be leveraged, but I'm not sure how comfortable you are with leveraging what may be religious beliefs; which might have a form like: "Would god do .... ?"

I suppose it goes without saying that it is extremely important to listen carefully during all this...you must address what they say, not the stereotype of their position. Besides, if you address something other than what they say, they will remember that you sidestepped their issue.

When you listen carefully, do you also ask questions to make sure you know what they mean? Or do you just jump to conclusions and let them correct you?

My only reservation is the "position of knowledge" thing. I don't think this is a useful strategy for non-specialists.

Another thing to consider is that they may have social relationships that depend on keeping up the belief in question. You might consider giving them ways to respond to their friends/family/peer-group when they question the person such that the relationship is not broken. Go ahead and presuppose that this will happen - and that whatever happens, the person will leave satisfied with the result; that can lock in the belief change -- keeps others from undoing it.

You can tell a story about how someone you know did so.

[Loon]

On the one hand, things like hypnosis and NLP fascinate me. On the other, they are best peripherally related to this thread. This and the tone of Suggestologist's last post lead me to believe that Suggestologist and Mercuitio have gone around on this subject before. I don't want a rehash here, but I would like to see the original thread if it's still around. Could I get a link?

Pretty please?

(There's no "please" smiley :( And no Japanese Flag. Though the only Japanese poster I'm aware of is Agur)

[Oleron]

I think most people have been in the position in their lives where they have realised half-way through an argument that their position is untenable or that they are way out of their depth.
It's not a nice feeling and people usually try and extricate themselves from the argument as quickly as possible, saving what little self-respect they have left.

I find that, when I'm debating a point with a friend/believer, there is often a critical moment where some undeniable piece of evidence has been presented and the believer retreats to a 'safe' position (such as 'well you have your beliefs and I have mine' or 'we'll agree to disagree').

It is this moment when it is pointless to continue. They have pulled up the drawbridge to protect their crumbling castle.
The reason is that they NEED the belief. No-one is allowed to question it - not even themselves.

I agree with Zep. No-one is ever going to say 'do you know what? - you're completely right - I'm going to change my belief'. But the seed of doubt has been planted.
Let it grow for a while.

[jcon96]

Originally posted by Oleron
My anecdote is from a couple of years ago when I visited Stonehenge on a tour with a bus full of new age types. Nice people, just a bit too eager to believe whatever they're told.

Our guide did the usual dowsing tricks, finding ley-lines all around the stones. I politely mentioned the ideomotor effect as a possible explanation for his 'discovery' and was immediately identified as the token skeptic in their midst.

After being patronised for my sad world view on the way home on the bus I re-stated my view that the dowsing rods weren't picking up on ley-lines or any other source of energy.
Then, as a throwaway comment really, I mentioned that the only energy source in the circle might be the tiny residual radioactive decay of the elements in the stones. (I'd seen a geiger counter passed over granite before and knew there was a detectable level of radiation emitting from certain rock types). I really wasn't sure whether this was the case or not with the Stonehenge stones but the party jumped on this idea and within 5 minutes had accepted this dubious science as the basis for a whole new theory about ley-lines!

I gave up at that point, realising I was actually adding to their belief system! Oops.

Sounds like you fed a whole busload of trolls!:D

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone.

I felt that this is well worth repeating. It is often the case that people on opposite sides of a belief just throw anger back and forth, and neither party learns anything by this.

It is a sentiment very well backed up by:

Originally posted by Zep
What really needs to done is NOT to try and overthrow an entrenched idea like Samson pulling down the temple, but to continue to add cracks in the foundation so it falls all by itself. It may take a bit longer that way, but it's a heck of a lot easier to do.

A good example is the "What were the lab results?" question. You haven't invalidated their ideas, but you have introduced doubt. And doubt is good. Doubt is your friend. And also remember that these people suck up these ideas, ANY ideas, like a sponge, so the doubt gets sucked up too.


and I would even go so far as to say these are the tactics that helped form me into the delightful skeptic I am today, being an ex-'these people', 'woowoo', whatever...

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Loon
On the one hand, things like hypnosis and NLP fascinate me. On the other, they are best peripherally related to this thread. This and the tone of Suggestologist's last post lead me to believe that Suggestologist and Mercuitio have gone around on this subject before. I don't want a rehash here, but I would like to see the original thread if it's still around. Could I get a link?

Pretty please?

(There's no "please" smiley :( And no Japanese Flag. Though the only Japanese poster I'm aware of is Agur)

Loon, we have touched on the subject of hypnosis peripherally. Isn't it obvious that I'm attempting to elicit specifics about Mercutio's strategy when he talks to believers in weird stuff? Isn't this a useful thing to model?

To see why I brought up the subject of presuppositions, see the abysmal misrepresentation of NLP presuppositions at skepdic.com.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by epepke

these Gen-X kids

Nitpick: Are 28-35 year olds kids? Or are you talking about Gen Y?

[ca3799]

I agree with epepke that some well placed questions can plant that seed of doubt that is so very much needed. I would be thinking about if Liz and Xavier were going to go to see the same fraud, uh psychic surgeon, and how I could compel them to view the experience with a jaundiced eye. Asking about the pathology report is an powerful way to make them observe the results of the surgery in a new way.

One of the ladies in my neighborhood, along with her dad, has gone to an "Applied Kinesiologist" for medical treatment at least once. They are of the "Doctors are just in it for the money" mindset, so I planted a seed of doubt regarding the same person diagnosing the problem and selling the treatment. I hope she'll have some doubtful pangs next time she pulls out her checkbook.

I prefer asking questions to making statements in these situations.

Sometimes, however, some just plain rudeness is needed (and fun). My best friend found some shaggy-baggy creep for a live in boyfriend a while back. He was a snake-in-the-grass, but she was 'in love' and had gone temporarily blind and dumb. We were having a big crawfish boil at her country place, when ol' snaky started in on the rapture and the end of the world. He just could not close his mouth and was annoying everyone, even the rapture inclined folks. Finally about six or eight people, men and women, pulled him around back for a little talking to.

And I was once compelled to stand on my desk at work and beg god to strike me down. I was neither struck down or fired!

I hate to admit it, but it was kinda fun.

[bignickel]

Bignickel's Law: You can't convince anyone of anything, except yourself.

[TheBoyPaj]

I just thought I'd bring this up again as I feel I managed to restrain myself very well yesterday.

We were visiting friends we haven't seen for a while. One of them starts mentioning that she is training to become a Reiki master, and that she can earn a lot of money as a result.

We get on well with this lady, so I didn't want to start foaming at the mouth but I could tell my wife knew exactly what I was thinking. We just made appropriate interested noises and let the matter slide. I think she thought we weren't being enthusiastic enough, because she said something like "Are you not into that sort of thing?" and promoted its effectiveness in pain relief and making you feel good.

Given the prompt, I eased in with "well, I can see how it might ease pain", and my wife added that normal massage does this too, "but some people claim that it can do things like cure diseases, which can't be proven".

"We have a cancer patient come to our group", she replied.
"Yes, but it doesn't actually make his tumor any smaller, does it?" I asked.

She didn't answer that. I get the feeling she thought it had done exactly that, but maybe she sensed I would ask for proof. And she was right...

"I'm prepare to believe it works, so long as there's some proof".
"I have books," she offered.
Well, we didn't get around to seeing her books (I think I can guess what sort of books they were). She didn't seem as keen to pursue the matter after that.

So, no one was converted but a pleasant afternoon was restored and no one got hurt. That, in my book, was a success.

[thaiboxerken]

“Oh, that’s right. Your ancestors were a lump of clay and a spare rib. I can certainly see how that’s much more reasonable.”

If that were true, women would look tasty wearing nothing but BBQ sauce.........


Wait.. i guess they would!

[thaiboxerken]

I have no problem with telling people that their superstitions are absurd.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
[B]I just thought I'd bring this up again as I feel I managed to restrain myself very well yesterday.

We were visiting friends we haven't seen for a while. One of them starts mentioning that she is training to become a Reiki master, and that she can earn a lot of money as a result.

We get on well with this lady, so I didn't want to start foaming at the mouth but I could tell my wife knew exactly what I was thinking. We just made appropriate interested noises and let the matter slide.

How much do you know about Reiki?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


How much do you know about Reiki?

What does one need to know about it? It's another superstition-based alternative healing "science". It is BS and works solely on placebo effect.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


What does one need to know about it? It's another superstition-based alternative healing "science". It is BS and works solely on placebo effect.

When you don't know what you're talking about, you have no credibility to speak of.

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. Reiki is BS, it's based on the belief that there is a living energy that flows through all living things that is connected. Reiki healers supposedly channel this living energy in order to heal people. The basic principles of the method are BS, and there is no science behind it. There is no evidence to support that anyone has been healed with Reiki techniques. One does not have to study magic to realize that there is no such thing as magic.

[TheBoyPaj]

I know it is a supposed method of healing through touch. At least, that is the claim made by my friend, who is a training practitioner of it.

I myself made no claims about what it can or cannot do and so I therefore require no specialist knowledge. My suggestion that there is no proof is correct to the best of my knowledge (since if such proof existed I expect it would be very well known by now). I also indicated that I am willing to change this view if sufficiently rigourous evidence was presented.

Is there a problem with this?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I know it is a supposed method of healing through touch. At least, that is the claim made by my friend, who is a training practitioner of it.

I myself made no claims about what it can or cannot do and so I therefore require no specialist knowledge. My suggestion that there is no proof is correct to the best of my knowledge (since if such proof existed I expect it would be very well known by now). I also indicated that I am willing to change this view if sufficiently rigourous evidence was presented.

Is there a problem with this?

The problem is that you did not take the opportunity to learn more about Reiki. If it's crap, you'll have more credibility when you can demonstrate that you actually know what it's about and how it works, when you seek to disprove it to those who are interested in it. Closing your mind does is not as effective.

[Pyrrho]

When these topics come up in conversation, I just don't participate anymore. People do not want to hear anything other than their own voices. If they choose to be nuts, that's their problem. I no longer give a damn.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
When these topics come up in conversation, I just don't participate anymore. People do not want to hear anything other than their own voices. If they choose to be nuts, that's their problem. I no longer give a damn.

Being passive feels great, doesn't it?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. Reiki is BS, it's based on the belief that there is a living energy that flows through all living things that is connected. Reiki healers supposedly channel this living energy in order to heal people. The basic principles of the method are BS, and there is no science behind it.

Bad Theory does not mean bad technique. It's the result that matters, not the theory that produced it. It's logically fallacious to disregard a result because you do not agree with a theory.

There is no evidence to support that anyone has been healed with Reiki techniques. One does not have to study magic to realize that there is no such thing as magic.

You don't believe in psychoneuroimmunology, I take it? You believe that all placebo effects are the same? You don't believe that rituals can change a person's outlook deeply? Stop shaking hands with people - it's just a ritual after all.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Being passive feels great, doesn't it?
It's a lot less stressful. I find I can emotionally detach when I use the written word, as opposed to the spoken word, and I think I can be much more effective when writing than when speaking. When kookery pops up in conversation, it's time for me to take a walk. I just can't physically involve myself in group insanity.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


The problem is that you did not take the opportunity to learn more about Reiki. If it's crap, you'll have more credibility when you can demonstrate that you actually know what it's about and how it works, when you seek to disprove it to those who are interested in it. Closing your mind does is not as effective.

That's a bunch of crap. There is no need to have "credibility" in the art of Reiki to understand that it's BS and doesn't work. It's up to the Reiki practitioners to actually show that their methods work. There is not much to Reiki, it's just another "energy healing" art, there is no need to hear their particular "theories" on how it works.

[thaiboxerken]

Bad Theory does not mean bad technique. It's the result that matters, not the theory that produced it. It's logically fallacious to disregard a result because you do not agree with a theory.

True, but when they simply wave hands at you to "heal", it's obvious that it is BS.


You don't believe in psychoneuroimmunology, I take it? You believe that all placebo effects are the same? You don't believe that rituals can change a person's outlook deeply? Stop shaking hands with people - it's just a ritual after all.

Claims to cure people using superpowers and shaking hands are two seperate things. Changing outlooks and attitudes are not the same as healing medical problems. Oh, and I don't shake hands with people if I can help it, it's just unsanitary.

[TheBoyPaj]

I didn't want to participate, I really didn't. My wife tells me that the reason our friend continued to probe our feelings on the subject was because she caught my wife giving me a knowing look!

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
If it's crap, you'll have more credibility when you can demonstrate that you actually know what it's about and how it works, when you seek to disprove it to those who are interested in it. Closing your mind does is not as effective.

I did not and do not seek to disprove it to her. I feel to do so would place a strain on our relationship, and she has known my wife for years.

By the way, people with closed minds do not usually offer to have their opinions changed by evidence. In my experience, the really closed minded people are those who continue to believe with no evidence whatsoever, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


That's a bunch of crap. There is no need to have "credibility" in the art of Reiki to understand that it's BS and doesn't work. It's up to the Reiki practitioners to actually show that their methods work. There is not much to Reiki, it's just another "energy healing" art, there is no need to hear their particular "theories" on how it works.

There is no need to have credibility with yourself, when you seek to influence yourself about something? For many people, that is the case, but they bump into too many walls they should have been aware of.

When dealing with others, lack of credibility is lethal to your argument. If you don't know what you're talking about, and the people you are talking with are more knowledgable and therefore realize you don't know what you're talking about -- you have no crediblity with them, which means you have no power to introduce doubt in their minds.

On the topic of theories, I am in agreement, theory is useless without a method of utilizing that allows one to have power over one's ecological and/or attitudinal conditions.

Ritual is also hilighted in marriage and funeral ceremonies. I assume you avoid both just as much as handshaking? Human beings are highly affected by ritual. Closing your mind to reality, you will bump into many walls needlessly.

[thaiboxerken]

Ritual is also hilighted in marriage and funeral ceremonies. I assume you avoid both just as much as handshaking? Human beings are highly affected by ritual. Closing your mind to reality, you will bump into many walls needlessly.

You are adding a huge red-herring into this discussion. I understand that rituals are a big part of society. However, this still does not mean that Reiki is actually an effective method of healing.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


I did not and do not seek to disprove it to her. I feel to do so would place a strain on our relationship, and she has known my wife for years.

Your relationship? You're placing ritual over reality, aren't you? :)

By the way, people with closed minds do not usually offer to have their opinions changed by evidence. In my experience,

In your experience? Where is the double-blind RCT? :)

the really closed minded people are those who continue to believe with no evidence whatsoever, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

They may sort evidence to the contrary differently than you. How can you find out how they actually think about things without engaging them in conversation. Believing you know how a person thinks without asking them is called "mind reading". Some psychologists call it that.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ritual is also hilighted in marriage and funeral ceremonies. I assume you avoid both just as much as handshaking? Human beings are highly affected by ritual. Closing your mind to reality, you will bump into many walls needlessly.

You are adding a huge red-herring into this discussion. I understand that rituals are a big part of society. However, this still does not mean that Reiki is actually an effective method of healing.

The fact is that feeling better attitudinally can improve medical conditions. I did not say "cure".

Did you realize that Reiki is ritual, before I brought that up?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


The fact is that feeling better attitudinally can improve medical conditions. I did not say "cure".
Or it can mask a problem that remains.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Your relationship? You're placing ritual over reality, aren't you? :)

Fine. Engage in wordplay. It adds nothing to your argument.


In your experience? Where is the double-blind RCT? :)


No, it's just an anecdote based on a casual observation. You see, I know the difference.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Or it can mask a problem that remains.

One should take full advantage of medical resources in conjunction with any attitude adjustment.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Fine. Engage in wordplay. It adds nothing to your argument.

Mischaracterizing a pointed argument as mere worldplay tells me you have yet to engage that lump between your ears. I'm referring your nose, of course.

No, it's just an anecdote based on a casual observation. You see, I know the difference.

Obviously, you don't. Basing your argument on anecdote tells me more than your dormative denials.

[TheBoyPaj]

Is your username Suggestologist because you just suggest that you have a point to make rather than actually making it?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Is your username Suggestologist because you just suggest that you have a point to make rather than actually making it?

Suggestologist is a word one can look up for oneself.

I use it in particular as response to people uninformed enough to critisize hypnosis as being "just" suggestion.

My point here has been obvious. Clearly. Those who fail to see it will continue bumping into objects they don't believe exist; because they are too afraid to examine and communicate those realities and people with whom they disagree.

Perhaps I should call myself Ritualologist for this thread?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


One should take full advantage of medical resources in conjunction with any attitude adjustment.

What I mean of course, is; before watching a Laurel & Hardy marathon, one should consult with their physician -- if they have pre-existing medical problems. One would not want a better attitude to mask physiological problems, would we?

[thaiboxerken]

You play silly word games, Suggestologist. I will not get into it. Yes, Reiki is a ritual.. but to compare it to a handshake is STUPID. People are not claiming that a handshake will heal a person. Reiki people ARE claiming to cure diseases and medical conditions. That is why Reiki is BS, because it does NOT cure disease and medical conditions.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Or it can mask a problem that remains.
Good point, Merc. Especially true when people squander their limited financial resources on fakery to the exclusion of medical science.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Is your username Suggestologist because you just suggest that you have a point to make rather than actually making it?

I think he's so dense that he didn't understand that he was being stabbed at.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You play silly word games, Suggestologist. I will not get into it. Yes, Reiki is a ritual.. but to compare it to a handshake is STUPID. People are not claiming that a handshake will heal a person. Reiki people ARE claiming to cure diseases and medical conditions. That is why Reiki is BS, because it does NOT cure disease and medical conditions.

Are there other claims it makes -- apart from claiming to cure disease -- that it achieves with regularity? Or do you not know enough to answer that question?

[Powa]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
What I mean of course, is; before watching a Laurel & Hardy marathon, one should consult with their physician -- if they have pre-existing medical problems. One would not want a better attitude to mask physiological problems, would we?
People don't go watch TV to heal themselves, in contrast, if they think reiki healed them when it didn't, that's potentialy dangerous.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
My point here has been obvious. Clearly. Those who fail to see it will continue bumping into objects they don't believe exist; because they are too afraid to examine and communicate those realities and people with whom they disagree.

Right. Well I must be so dumb as to not comprehend your greater understanding of the world. I may be wrong, but I think I'll get over it.

Hey, you know what? I just did.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I think he's so dense that he didn't understand that he was being stabbed at.

Are you mind reading again? Isn't that a sin or something to skeptics?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Right. Well I must be so dumb as to not comprehend your greater understanding of the world. I may be wrong, but I think I'll get over it.

Hey, you know what? I just did.

You'll keep bumping into reality because you keep failing to look where you are and where you're going. That's your problem, not mine. Just keep assuming without checking, keep making things up about that which you cannot be bothered to take a healthy examination, to ask a person a question before assuming yourself knowledgable. There are too many jerks out there for me to be overly concerned with the ones on this forum.

[TheBoyPaj]

I didn't ask for your opinion. You couldn't help sticking it in regardless.

Run along. You have people to fleece.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Powa

People don't go watch TV to heal themselves,

Well, intent doesn't matter. It's the result that counts. People who are in jeopardy of accidentally curing themselves -- or even just improving their condition - by watching television should be warned by their physicians.

BTW, does anyone understand the reference to Laurel & Hardy and curing one's problem? Any cognitive psychologists out there who know of the case I'm alluding to?

in contrast, if they think reiki healed them when it didn't, that's potentialy dangerous.

If they think reiki healed them without checking with their medical doctor, I agree that would be dangerous.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I didn't ask for your opinion. You couldn't help sticking it in regardless.

Run along. You have people to fleece.

Yes, you've been running along and bumping into things too freely. But again, that's your problem.

[thaiboxerken]

The attitude of Suggestologist is one of a TROLL. He has contributed nothing but angst to the thread. Word games and semantics don't interest me.

Reiki is a BS method based in superstition and adds no real value to humankind.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The attitude of Suggestologist is one of a TROLL. He has contributed nothing but angst to the thread. Word games and semantics don't interest me.

You aren't an interestable sort of person. You can't be bothered to examine the beliefs of those you disagree with. You can't be bothered to think, instead of repeating slogans. You just can't be bothered to bother about anything, can you?

Jerk.

Reiki is a BS method based in superstition and adds no real value to humankind.

You don't know enough about it to make that statement with any credibility, but for those who are already convinced, without full examination, just as yourself.

[TheBoyPaj]

A simple question, Suggestologist (and please bear in mind my feeble intellect when wording your response). What level of reading about Reiki do I have to undertake before you will consider my opinion valid?

[thaiboxerken]

You don't know enough about it to make that statement with any credibility, but for those who are already convinced, without full examination, just as yourself.

False, I know enough. It is considered "alternative" medicine for a reason. It has not been proven effective. One does not need to become a Reiki practitioner in order to have a valid opinion on whether it works or not.

[NullPointerException]

The premise behind reiki was taken from touch therapy that hospitals normally perform on premis to keep them developing. The idea is that if you are a child and being touched and massaged makes you feel secure and comfortable it would work just as well to have someone pay attention to you. Anyway the scam basically developed out of that because having someone give you physical reassurance in a plutonic way increases health in general.(I mean, theres always a little truth in myths)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
A simple question, Suggestologist (and please bear in mind my feeble intellect when wording your response). What level of reading about Reiki do I have to undertake before you will consider my opinion valid?

I prefer primary source experience. In other words, at least see it done. Better: have it done to you. Even better: do it yourself. And above all, give it an honest chance. If it's really BS, you'll have the opportunity to reevaluate sometime after the experience. Are you convinced enough in the fact that it's BS to not consider it BS for the time being while you experience it for yourself?

When I read about gestalt therapy, I wasn't satisfied. I went to a college media library and watched old black-and-white tapes of Friedrick "Fritz" Perls, smoking Cigars at Esalon while he worked with people.

Of course, I view things like reiki and auras and so on as synesthetic metaphors; I wouldn't necessarily expect most people to come to that conclusion.

And ... Metaphors are what We Live By.... Metaphors organize how we look at and react to the world. Ritual can deeply change the metaphors we use.

The idea that Reiki serves no beneficial funcion is ridiculous. And obviously so. Nearly anything can produce benefit. The question one should ask is not "Is anyone helped by doing X". Instead ask, "Are more people helped than hurt while doing X?" Because, you know, even labotomy did help some people.

And even pretending to be a tree with ripening fruit falling off of yourself for an hour each day can help some people.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You don't know enough about it to make that statement with any credibility, but for those who are already convinced, without full examination, just as yourself.

False, I know enough. It is considered "alternative" medicine for a reason. It has not been proven effective. One does not need to become a Reiki practitioner in order to have a valid opinion on whether it works or not.

Thank you. I now understand how you come to the conclusions you do. You are working off of a Signal Response to "alternative medicine". To you, "alternative medicine" means "not effective".

S-R conditioning.

However, if you look at quack watch, you may find an article which takes issue with the idea that biofeedback and hypnosis being called alternative. The fact is that hypnosis is highly studied, you can't find a psychological journal that doesn't include articles about it. And I'm not as familiar with biofeedback.

So, I advise you to not immediately assume that just because a medical procedure or technique is termed "alternative"; that doesn't mean that it has no effect.

Words are symbols. Work on not eating the menu.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


I prefer primary source experience. In other words, at least see it done. Better: have it done to you. Even better: do it yourself. And above all, give it an honest chance. If it's really BS, you'll have the opportunity to reevaluate sometime after the experience. Are you convinced enough in the fact that it's BS to not consider it BS for the time being while you experience it for yourself?

I see. And by that token you would suggest that the best way to work out how David Blaine does his tricks would be to watch his TV special?

I was under the impression you knew of some proof that Reiki is effective. I now see that you do not.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


I see. And by that token you would suggest that the best way to work out how David Blaine does his tricks would be to watch his TV special?

I was under the impression you knew of some proof that Reiki is effective. I now see that you do not.
Ah, the specious PSP once again rears its ugly head, Paj. Suggestologist needs to jump out the top floor window in a twenty-story building before being convinced he won't survive it. PSP, my man, PSP.

For those needing a good mnemonic to remember Suggestologist's questionable advice, simply think "PiSs Poor".

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


I see. And by that token you would suggest that the best way to work out how David Blaine does his tricks would be to watch his TV special?

I was under the impression you knew of some proof that Reiki is effective. I now see that you do not.

I am not claiming that reiki is or is not effective. I am claiming that nearly anything can be effective for some things.

If you want to understand magik, learn some. Reading about it is boring without practicing the actual magic tricks. That's my experience.

If you want to learn David Blaine's tricks, become his buddy. I doubt that someone who has Never done a magic trick could work out how Blaine does his stuff.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ah, the specious PSP once again rears its ugly head, Paj. Suggestologist needs to jump out the top floor window in a twenty-story building before being convinced he won't survive it. PSP, my man, PSP.

For those needing a good mnemonic to remember Suggestologist's questionable advice, simply think "PiSs Poor".

You're into sloganeering, I see. I've jumped off of enough things to have the experience that the higher you jump from the harder you land.

People like you, on the other hand, will accept it if a scientist were to tell you that you could jump of a twenty-story building and survive; because you treat personal experience as second-hand, when in fact the scientific articles are second-hand. A handy heuristic.

[thaiboxerken]

I prefer primary source experience. In other words, at least see it done. Better: have it done to you. Even better: do it yourself. And above all, give it an honest chance. If it's really BS, you'll have the opportunity to reevaluate sometime after the experience. Are you convinced enough in the fact that it's BS to not consider it BS for the time being while you experience it for yourself?

No. I have a magic pill for you to injest, I won't tell you what's in it, only that it will make you feel better. Would you take the pill and give it an honest chance to work?

FYI, a Reiki guy actually tried to cure me of a headache and failed. I didn't pay any money, he was trying to prove himself.

[TheBoyPaj]

I am not claiming that reiki is or is not effective. I am claiming that nearly anything can be effective for some things.

Finally, we agree on something. My claim is that Reiki is good for two things. Making people feel good about themselves (possible psychological pain relief/placebo action) and relieving them of money.

In fact, that's what I said in my initial post. Why exactly did you feel the need to imply otherwise?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

It's a lot less stressful. I find I can emotionally detach when I use the written word, as opposed to the spoken word, and I think I can be much more effective when writing than when speaking. When kookery pops up in conversation, it's time for me to take a walk. I just can't physically involve myself in group insanity.

The fact that You think you don't involve yourself in group insanity implies that you aren't sane. :)

Take a good look around you. They're all insane. And you're not discluded.

You may be more effective in writting, I just hope you keep in mind that sometimes writing cannot effect the things you want affected.

You can always pretend you're not yourself.

[thaiboxerken]

Words are symbols. Work on not eating the menu.

BS. You use nonsense rhetoric to make yourself seem as if you have a superior position. The fact of the matter is that Reiki has not been proven effective for healing or curing ailments. That's why I consider Reiki nonsense.

Your semantics game doesn't impress me in the slightest.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I prefer primary source experience. In other words, at least see it done. Better: have it done to you. Even better: do it yourself. And above all, give it an honest chance. If it's really BS, you'll have the opportunity to reevaluate sometime after the experience. Are you convinced enough in the fact that it's BS to not consider it BS for the time being while you experience it for yourself?

No. I have a magic pill for you to injest, I won't tell you what's in it, only that it will make you feel better. Would you take the pill and give it an honest chance to work?

Doctors do that crap to people all the time. :)

FYI, a Reiki guy actually tried to cure me of a headache and failed. I didn't pay any money, he was trying to prove himself.

Did you give it an honest chance. Did you put your skepticism aside for the moment?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Words are symbols. Work on not eating the menu.

BS. You use nonsense rhetoric to make yourself seem as if you have a superior position. The fact of the matter is that Reiki has not been proven effective for healing or curing ailments. That's why I consider Reiki nonsense.

Your semantics game doesn't impress me in the slightest.

I'm not playing semantics. I've identified the psychological action that takes place when you hear "alternative" juxtaposed with "medicine." Many people have similar reactions with other word combinations, "hot buttons" -- that's what some people call the triggers.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Finally, we agree on something. My claim is that Reiki is good for two things. Making people feel good about themselves (possible psychological pain relief/placebo action) and relieving them of money.

Doctors make people feel good and relieve them of money as well, are you opposed to medical doctors? There was even an expose` recently about how doctors were paying people to have unneeded operations so that they could relieve their insurance companies of money.

I think what you're opposed to is the "placebo" quality of one as opposed to the "physical" quality of the other. I suppose that you would much rather pay for drugs if your kid is a bedwetter than have some "placebo" ritualistic alternative; to stop wet bed?

In fact, that's what I said in my initial post. Why exactly did you feel the need to imply otherwise?

I believe I objected to your not being open to new experience. To learning more about the subject and how the other person thinks about the subject.

[thaiboxerken]

The thing is...........I tried Reiki, it didn't work. Oh, and I can't place my skepticism to the side. I want evidence, I sought evidence.. i found none. Will you place your skepticism to the side and buy my Mini Cooper for $100,000 US Dollars? It's well worth it, how can you know without actually doing it?

Even if my headache did go away with the Reiki, I would still seek clinical and medical evidence. I am well aware of the placebo effect. Simply because I saw the magician pull a rabbit out of his hat doesn't mean that there is hole to another universe in that hat.

An open mind lets the sun burn your brain.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Thank you. I now understand how you come to the conclusions you do. You are working off of a Signal Response to "alternative medicine". To you, "alternative medicine" means "not effective".

S-R conditioning.

and later,
I'm not playing semantics. I've identified the psychological action that takes place when you hear "alternative" juxtaposed with "medicine." Many people have similar reactions with other word combinations, "hot buttons" -- that's what some people call the triggers.

If I review an intro textbook that has this as an example of S-R conditioning, I leave the manuscript bleeding red ink. As this is just an internet forum, you are allowed a little more leeway. You can try again, or just admit you have not identified psychological squat.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The thing is...........I tried Reiki, it didn't work. Oh, and I can't place my skepticism to the side.

If you can't place your skepticism to the side, then you're not secure in your scepticism. And you didn't actually try it if you didn't fully get into it. And if you were trying it with an incompetent practitioner, you weren't really trying it either.

I want evidence, I sought evidence.. i found none. Will you place your skepticism to the side and buy my Mini Cooper for $100,000 US Dollars? It's well worth it, how can you know without actually doing it?

I can take it for a test drive and find out for myself. That means I like personal experience. You couldn't convince me to buy it by showing me the specs. I wonder, have you ever bought a car without test driving it? I wouldn't be surprised.

Even if my headache did go away with the Reiki, I would still seek clinical and medical evidence. I am well aware of the placebo effect. Simply because I saw the magician pull a rabbit out of his hat doesn't mean that there is hole to another universe in that hat.

You think "placebo" means "trick". Just like you think "alternative medicine" means "not effective". Both wrong.

An open mind lets the sun burn your brain.

A closed personality leads to depressive boredom and paranoia.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Mercutio


and later,


If I review an intro textbook that has this as an example of S-R conditioning, I leave the manuscript bleeding red ink. As this is just an internet forum, you are allowed a little more leeway. You can try again, or just admit you have not identified psychological squat. [/B]

Mercutio, what is a "hot button"?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You're into sloganeering, I see. I've jumped off of enough things to have the experience that the higher you jump from the harder you land.

People like you, on the other hand, will accept it if a scientist were to tell you that you could jump of a twenty-story building and survive; because you treat personal experience as second-hand, when in fact the scientific articles are second-hand. A handy heuristic.
What a convenient straw-man you've constructed! "Treat personal experience as second-hand." Marvelous deception, but decidedly not what I have ever said. Listen, if the only way for you to know you can't breathe in space is to try, then, by all means. If the only way for you to know you'll be burned to a crisp if you jump in a fire, then, by all means, jump. I suggest, however, that you'll find most people both grasp and accept reasonable evidence and reasonable explanations rather than assuming it ain't real unless they do it themselves.

What in Ed's name are you smoking, anyway?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

What a convenient straw-man you've constructed! "Treat personal experience as second-hand." Marvelous deception, but decidedly not what I have ever said.

You've demonstrated your philosophy many times. I find it as stupid as ever.

Listen, if the only way for you to know you can't breathe in space is to try, then, by all means.

Actually, you can fly a plane into the atmosphere (or climb a mountain) and find out that there's less air the higher you go.

If the only way for you to know you'll be burned to a crisp if you jump in a fire, then, by all means, jump.

How many times did mommy tell you not to touch because it's hot? But you didn't really learn until you touched it once.

You don't have to jump into the water to find out that it's wet. You just have to put a toe in.

I suggest, however, that you'll find most people both grasp and accept reasonable evidence and reasonable explanations rather than assuming it ain't real unless they do it themselves.

What in Ed's name are you smoking, anyway?

People may accept working hypotheses from other people. But they don't actually believe anything until they experience it. They do not automatically respond with the full reality of things until it is experienced.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If I review an intro textbook that has this as an example of S-R conditioning, I leave the manuscript bleeding red ink. As this is just an internet forum, you are allowed a little more leeway. You can try again, or just admit you have not identified psychological squat.
Merc,
Give him a break - it's not a textbook. Wouldn't you give an Intro student at least half credit for that if the question was "Give an example of semantic respondent conditioning."?

[thaiboxerken]

If you can't place your skepticism to the side, then you're not secure in your scepticism. And you didn't actually try it if you didn't fully get into it. And if you were trying it with an incompetent practitioner, you weren't really trying it either.

I can't stop being skeptical, just like you can't stop being an idiot. It's a part of who I am. A skeptic looks for evidence, I sought it with Reiki, even though I had my doubts about it.


I can take it for a test drive and find out for myself.

No, I am saying that you will only be rewarded if you pay the money first. Why not be open and just buy the car?

That means I like personal experience. You couldn't convince me to buy it by showing me the specs. I wonder, have you ever bought a car without test driving it? I wouldn't be surprised.

I never have. What you are doing is being skeptical.. You are test driving the car. I "test drove" Reiki with this person. It seems to me that you are the one that wants me to buy before try (place skepticism to the side).


You think "placebo" means "trick". Just like you think "alternative medicine" means "not effective". Both wrong.

False. I do not think placebo means trick at all, and I made no such assertion. Please keep your strawmen inyour pocket.

Oh, I didn't say alternative medicine means "not effective" either. It means "not proven effective". There is a difference.

A closed personality leads to depressive boredom and paranoia.

I'm open to evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

You don't have to jump into the water to find out that it's wet. You just have to put a toe in.

This is all a skeptic is doing. I knew Reiki was BS before I even tried it, but still gave the guy a benefit of doubt. Oh, and yes, I have researched Reiki before. You just assumed that I hadn't. Even so, one does not need to research the magic of evles to realize that it's an absurd idea.

You really are not consistent with your "try it" criteria are you? I told you that I tried Reiki, but that wasn't enough for you because I didn't "place skepticism to the side". Howver........ taking a test drive IS skepticism in motion. Make up your freaking mind.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

If you can't place your skepticism to the side, then you're not secure in your scepticism. And you didn't actually try it if you didn't fully get into it. And if you were trying it with an incompetent practitioner, you weren't really trying it either.

I can't stop being skeptical, just like you can't stop being an idiot.

I can't stop being an idiot because it is you who are controlling the meaning of the word. Only YOU can stop me being an idiot. :)

Well, I suppose I could attempt to persuade you that it means something other than you think it means. But that's what this thread has been about, and look how well it's working.

Fact is, you can stop being skeptical and just go with it. You are the one controlling how skeptical you are toward any particular context; pay no attention to this remote control for that chip in your head I'm holding in my right hand. Just get an authentic sense for what it is. If you're secure in your skepticism, you can pick it back up at some specified point later on. People addicted to cigarettes are convinced that they could put one down and that they could still pick it back up at a later time, or start a new one.

It's a part of who I am. A skeptic looks for evidence, I sought it with Reiki, even though I had my doubts about it.

It used to be a part of who you were that you messed your diapers several times a day. You probably don't need Depends adult diapers yet, but you can put them on any time you wanted. There's absolutely nothing stopping you but your attitude.

"It's a part of who I am." is an excuse to not do something different. Temporary as it may be.


I can take it for a test drive and find out for myself.

No, I am saying that you will only be rewarded if you pay the money first. Why not be open and just buy the car?

I'm not open because your sales pitch is unattractive. I already have a car, what makes yours so special that it can't even be test driven before selling?

That means I like personal experience. You couldn't convince me to buy it by showing me the specs. I wonder, have you ever bought a car without test driving it? I wouldn't be surprised.

I never have. What you are doing is being skeptical.. You are test driving the car. I "test drove" Reiki with this person. It seems to me that you are the one that wants me to buy before try (place skepticism to the side).

No, it's more that I want you to test drive a couple more cars. And I want you to have fun as you do, and let go of skepticism thet this could really be your next car as you drive it.


You think "placebo" means "trick". Just like you think "alternative medicine" means "not effective". Both wrong.

False. I do not think placebo means trick at all, and I made no such assertion. Please keep your strawmen inyour pocket.

Oh, I didn't say alternative medicine means "not effective" either. It means "not proven effective". There is a difference.

Great. Does "not proven effective" mean "not likely effective" or "0.05% chance of ever being proven effective" or something like that?

A closed personality leads to depressive boredom and paranoia.

I'm open to evidence.

Well, that's the Reiki practitioner's job. I'm only interested in getting you to have an authentic experience on your test drives.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
The fact that You think you don't involve yourself in group insanity implies that you aren't sane. :)

Take a good look around you. They're all insane. And you're not discluded.

You may be more effective in writting, I just hope you keep in mind that sometimes writing cannot effect the things you want affected.

You can always pretend you're not yourself.
I may not know what is best for me, but I have a damned good idea what is bad for me. Participating in conversations about "the paranormal" is not good for me, and I am under no obligation to participate.

I don't worry about whether or not I'm effective in writing. When I write, my concern is whether or not I am saying what I want to say. How the reader reacts is beyond my control.

[michaellee]

How was the dinner? My skeptical views towards everything aside, If Liz can cook, and cook well enough for me to accept another invititation for dinner, I would hold my tongue during this first dinner, accept another invitation, and in the interim make my plan as to how to garner a third invite, and silence their beliefs simultaneously.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

I may not know what is best for me, but I have a damned good idea what is bad for me. Participating in conversations about "the paranormal" is not good for me, and I am under no obligation to participate.

Nobody's under that obligation.

I don't worry about whether or not I'm effective in writing. When I write, my concern is whether or not I am saying what I want to say. How the reader reacts is beyond my control.

I'm sure you'll acknowledge that while the reader is unpredictable, there are ways of writing that will usually get a predictable response. And the more you focus on getting the reaction you want, the more likely you will get it.

This reminds me. In the early 90's, I debated on BBS systems with christians trying to convince them that the bible was nonsense. One of them was a Church of Christ guy. After I beat him badly in a debate on the BBS, he challenged me to debate at his church. Well, I just didn't have the guts, the confidence, to do it. I had to decline.

If I were as interested in that today as I was back then, I probably would accept such a challenge.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
People may accept working hypotheses from other people. But they don't actually believe anything until they experience it. They do not automatically respond with the full reality of things until it is experienced.
You are projecting your delusional approach to life to others, kid. Don't shackle me with your ignorance. I don't need to lose a finger to dry ice because I somehow can't get the reality until I experience it. Neither did I need to run the sharp edge of a knife along my skin to know I can cut myself with it. I've never had whooping cough, but I already know the symptoms. I won't knowingly expose myself to HIV because I cannot understand that I will sicken and will die from it.

Neither do I need to discuss this further with you to know you're at least one sandwich shy of a picnic.

[thaiboxerken]

Fact is, you can stop being skeptical and just go with it...

False, I cannot do that. Just like I can't decide to honestly believe in Santa for one day then pick up on not believing in Santa the next day. Skepticism is part of who I am, when I investigate things, I look for evidence. The mere fact that I actually look for evidence makes me a skeptic. If I could lay my skepticism aside, I'd be into Reiki right now because I really do think it would be cool if that crap actually worked. I'd also believe in gods and psychics too. Belief is not a thing one can simply toggle on and off.


It used to be a part of who you were that you messed your diapers several times a day. You probably don't need Depends adult diapers yet, but you can put them on any time you wanted. There's absolutely nothing stopping you but your attitude.

False analogy, potty training has nothing to do with skepticism and belief.

"It's a part of who I am." is an excuse to not do something different. Temporary as it may be.

Is that like not trying to be homsexual for a day simply because being heterosexual is an excuse not to try something different?

I'm not open because your sales pitch is unattractive. I already have a car, what makes yours so special that it can't even be test driven before selling?

You are violating your own rules of placing skepticism aside. I'm asking you to place your skepticism to the side and just buy the car. When you ask questions about my care, you are being skeptical.

No, it's more that I want you to test drive a couple more cars. And I want you to have fun as you do, and let go of skepticism thet this could really be your next car as you drive it.

Test driving a car before buying IS skepticism in motion.

Great. Does "not proven effective" mean "not likely effective" or "0.05% chance of ever being proven effective" or something like that?

No, it means that there is not enough, or no evidence to support the notion that it actually works.


Well, that's the Reiki practitioner's job. I'm only interested in getting you to have an authentic experience on your test drives.

Screw you, my choices are mine to make, keep your suggestions to yourself. I will not simply become insane for a day because you think it's a good idea.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Doctors make people feel good and relieve them of money as well, are you opposed to medical doctors? There was even an expose` recently about how doctors were paying people to have unneeded operations so that they could relieve their insurance companies of money.

Where did I endorse that fraudulent practice? As I have said several times on this thread, I have nothing against people charging money for pain relief so long as they do not claim that their actions are having other healing effects which are unproven. According to my friend, that is what it claimed about Reiki.

I believe I objected to your not being open to new experience. To learning more about the subject and how the other person thinks about the subject.

So, just to clarify, is this your position?

I do not understand the claims made by Reiki even though my friend, who is a trainee Reiki practitioner, has explained them to me.
Further, I cannot learn about Reiki without participating in it, and my opinion on the matter is invalid until that happens.
Further, if I do receive Reiki treatment and I am unimpressed with it (as in the case of thaiboxerken), then its failure is down to my not giving it a proper chance and therefore my opinion is still invalid.

Isn't it just true that you will continue to discard my opinion until it agrees with yours?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You're into sloganeering, I see. I've jumped off of enough things to have the experience that the higher you jump from the harder you land.

.
Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

You are suggesting that physical laws some how can be extrapolated to situations beyond your experience. I think that we all pretty much do that. Why then would these physical laws break down in the world of woo? Take the inverse square law, for example.

It seems that you are sensibly cognicent of physical limitations when it involves your physical safety. When, however, your intellectual safety is imperiled you are Evil Keneval. Does this sum it up?

[Hazelip]

Which is where I'm not today with my painful sore throat and an unwillingness to spread infection to my co-workers...

Anyway, a week or so ago, I was talking to my officemate. A good guy, a friend of mine, and we've even hung out together outside of work. A rarity for me.

He and I have a mutual acquaintance at work, a seventh-day adventist, and I think our mutual friend may be working him over for purposes of conversion. Fine and dandy, I don't really give a rip.

But, the time to which I refer talking with my friend, the subject of my atheism arose. This is also fine and dandy. I take the position that if it's OK for others to talk openly about christianity or being jewish or muslim, it's OK for me to talk about being an atheist. He particular topic this time was our calendar year.

His whole argument was that since I use the system of accounting years based upon the time following the death of christ, I am not a real atheist. :confused: I was flabbergasted. I asked him which system should I use, and he replied from the beginning of time, essentially, an unknowable answer. I pointed out that people of Chinese origin who do not use the Chinese year are still Chinese, but this slid off him as easily as Quaker State off a duck's back.

I'm considering asking him for alternative names for Wednesday and Thursday...

Then, last week, I got cold in the office and I was told to eat more yang foods. Wha..?

See, I've made changes to my eating habits and combined with exercise, I've lost more than 50 pounds over the last year. As a result, I eat carrots, drink buckets of water, fruits, and other veggies throughout the day.

I normally run pretty hot. If I could, I'd probably have my house set to 65 degrees year-round. So, me complaining about being cold at the office was unusual. I was standing there talking with my hands thrust under my pits and hugging myself, and when asked, I complained about being cold.

This person, a former manager of mine, didn't comment on my loss of personal insulation, or the fact that I was wearing a t-shirt and jeans on a Friday, or that perhaps the office air conditioning was too damned low in my office. She asked me what I had eaten, and I replied "two carrots, an apple, an orange, and about a liter of water" thinking that I just needed a hot cup of Joe. Instead, she gives me this yang comment. :rolleyes:

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Fact is, you can stop being skeptical and just go with it...

False, I cannot do that. Just like I can't decide to honestly believe in Santa for one day then pick up on not believing in Santa the next day. Skepticism is part of who I am, when I investigate things, I look for evidence. The mere fact that I actually look for evidence makes me a skeptic. If I could lay my skepticism aside, I'd be into Reiki right now because I really do think it would be cool if that crap actually worked.

I'll point out for later reference that you are "sold" on Reiki. You'd like to have it, if it worked. You have not sold me on the car below.

I'd also believe in gods and psychics too. Belief is not a thing one can simply toggle on and off.

I disagree. And, Belief is not a thing, period.


It used to be a part of who you were that you messed your diapers several times a day. You probably don't need Depends adult diapers yet, but you can put them on any time you wanted. There's absolutely nothing stopping you but your attitude.

False analogy, potty training has nothing to do with skepticism and belief.

You're missing the point of the analogy. If it had something to do with skepticism and belief it wouldn't be a good analogy. The purpose of analogy is to get you to think about one thing in a dissimilar context. At least that's my purpose.

"It's a part of who I am." is an excuse to not do something different. Temporary as it may be.

Is that like not trying to be homsexual for a day simply because being heterosexual is an excuse not to try something different?

If you're sold on it, go ahead.

I'm not open because your sales pitch is unattractive. I already have a car, what makes yours so special that it can't even be test driven before selling?

You are violating your own rules of placing skepticism aside. I'm asking you to place your skepticism to the side and just buy the car. When you ask questions about my care, you are being skeptical.

No, I am asking you to sell. There are many ideas that I'm just not interested enough to explore right now. The stuff surrounding "Atlantis" is one example. It's just not interesting. Fact is, I'm not sold on Reiki; I've read some of what's on the internet and skimmed books at the book store, it just doesn't excite me.

On the other hand, you have already expressed the fact that you are sold on Reiki -- you'd like to have it, if it works.

No, it's more that I want you to test drive a couple more cars. And I want you to have fun as you do, and let go of skepticism thet this could really be your next car as you drive it.

Test driving a car before buying IS skepticism in motion.

I don't agree. If you don't believe you could ever buy the car, skepticism blocks the full experience of driving it. It's the not believing you could ever buy the car that is skepticism. Test driving is hypothesis testing; which both the active believer and the active skeptic must do before they can form a full opinion.

Great. Does "not proven effective" mean "not likely effective" or "0.05% chance of ever being proven effective" or something like that?

No, it means that there is not enough, or no evidence to support the notion that it actually works.

How likely is it that it will ever be proven effective?


Well, that's the Reiki practitioner's job. I'm only interested in getting you to have an authentic experience on your test drives.

Screw you, my choices are mine to make, keep your suggestions to yourself. I will not simply become insane for a day because you think it's a good idea.

You're insane every day. It's a shame you haven't yet noticed that every one is.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You are projecting your delusional approach to life to others, kid. Don't shackle me with your ignorance. I don't need to lose a finger to dry ice because I somehow can't get the reality until I experience it. Neither did I need to run the sharp edge of a knife along my skin to know I can cut myself with it. I've never had whooping cough, but I already know the symptoms. I won't knowingly expose myself to HIV because I cannot understand that I will sicken and will die from it.

Neither do I need to discuss this further with you to know you're at least one sandwich shy of a picnic.

You know, I just heard the silliest thing. Some "scientists" published a result that warming up before exercising doesn't to anything to prevent injuring yourself while exercising. Are you willing to trust them?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You know, I just heard the silliest thing. Some "scientists" published a result that warming up before exercising doesn't to anything to prevent injuring yourself while exercising. Are you willing to trust them?

Not on the results of one study, no. If someone replicates it with proper technique etc etc and it supports the original paper, then I'll focus less on the warm-up, probably.

Where is this study, anyway?

[thaiboxerken]

Suggestologist is not a person who likes to have rational discussions, but instead plays games of semantics and completely ignores points made by other people.

Because of this, I am placing him on my ignore list.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Suggestologist is not a person who likes to have rational discussions, but instead plays games of semantics and completely ignores points made by other people.

Because of this, I am placing him on my ignore list.

If you're going to make accusations, make specific accusations. Which points do you feel have been ignored?

What you call "games of semantics" is what other people call taking a different perspective on things.

If you place me on ignore, you're the one ignoring points made.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Not on the results of one study, no. If someone replicates it with proper technique etc etc and it supports the original paper, then I'll focus less on the warm-up, probably.

Where is this study, anyway?

It's one of those radio and CNN headline things. The media throws around such crap because people who are science-oriented are attracted to them. I'm highly sceptical of this one.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
If you're going to make accusations, make specific accusations. Which points do you feel have been ignored?


This one:

Originally posted by me
So, just to clarify, is this your position?

I do not understand the claims made by Reiki even though my friend, who is a trainee Reiki practitioner, has explained them to me.
Further, I cannot learn about Reiki without participating in it, and my opinion on the matter is invalid until that happens.
Further, if I do receive Reiki treatment and I am unimpressed with it (as in the case of thaiboxerken), then its failure is down to my not giving it a proper chance and therefore my opinion is still invalid.


I understand that when you see the word "clarify" you break into a cold sweat, but it really would help move the discussion along.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


This one:



I understand that when you see the word "clarify" you break into a cold sweat, but it really would help move the discussion along.

Your opinion is not as potent as someone who has participated in it, if you haven't. There are always elements you learn by participation that you won't learn by reading about it.

If you don't give it a proper chance, then you can't say it's failed. If you put your skepticism on the shelf for however long the ritual procedure takes, then you can say it failed if it does.

If you view your self-concept in static terms, remember that beliefs are processes, not things.

Sitting on this chair, I believe that it's there under me. If I stand up, I still believe it's there. If I attempt to sit back on it, and someone has moved it, my belief that it's there immediately changes as I tumble to the floor. See how easy it is to change beliefs?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Your opinion is not as potent as someone who has participated in it, if you haven't. There are always elements you learn by participation that you won't learn by reading about it.

This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.

If you don't give it a proper chance, then you can't say it's failed. If you put your skepticism on the shelf for however long the ritual procedure takes, then you can say it failed if it does.


This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

I'm done now. Cue the gobbledygook.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.



This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

I'm done now. Cue the gobbledygook.

What an excellent post and great analogy!

Oops, sorry. It was gobbledygook's time:D

Seriously, though, that was great analogy about not needing to experience something to realise it is silly and founded on nonsense.

Yet I suppose you'd never really understand what it is to be a Skull 'n' Bones unless you'd been £!$*ed by a bush.:D

And why do I 'see' the word 'fisted' in my censored word above?????

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.

What we're talking about are people who are not even in the room at the time of the magic trick. They can't comment on what happened and how it happened because they weren't there. They may have great explanations but they have no way of knowing if their explanations even match what happened. This is like people who hypothesize that when people walk on hot coals, the coals aren't really hot. The hypothesis is great, but it's wrong; and they'd know it's wrong if they had the actual experience.

This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

Yes, it's amazing how many timely remissions happen, isn't it. How does one prove that a particular remission was spontaneous?

And if one were to suggest that one's brain is connected to one's immune system, what would be the response?

I mean if someone were to suggest that immune response could be conditioned, you know; like reading about Pavlov makes people salivate.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

You're mischaracterizing my position on point 2.

And I have no objection to running controlled tests.

And people do not gain belief by controlled tests. Smokers will tell you, yes they know about smokers getting lung cancer, but they don't believe it will happen to them.

Yes, we know asteroids hit planets, but we don't believe it will happen to us. Yes, we know terrorists attack, but we don't believe it will happen to us; until it happens.

Yes, the patient says, they know they should take all of their antibiotics, but they often don't, because they believe their feeling better more than they believe what their doctor told them.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


It's one of those radio and CNN headline things. The media throws around such crap because people who are science-oriented are attracted to them. I'm highly sceptical of this one.
So skeptical that you first assert the existence of a study, and now don't name it, but defer to the media "headlines"? Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no sport here, sport.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

So skeptical that you first assert the existence of a study, and now don't name it, but defer to the media "headlines"? Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no sport here, sport.

Well, let's run with it. The issue was brought up that one shouldn't believe the first study about any specific topic. One should wait until a large enough study is done, etc. Well, who decides when the study is large enough and when it's well done enough to be believed? Is that not an individual decision based on individuals' experience with studies and maybe even with the particular investigators?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
What we're talking about are people who are not even in the room at the time of the magic trick. They can't comment on what happened and how it happened because they weren't there.

I have seen a reiki session in progress. Did I not mention that? Sure, I wasn't on the bed, but I am aware of the procedure. Am I now qualified to talk about it?

Yes, it's amazing how many timely remissions happen, isn't it. How does one prove that a particular remission was spontaneous?

You'd have to track what other treatments a person was having. That would be where the controlled tests come in. How are those going, by the way?

And if one were to suggest that one's brain is connected to one's immune system, what would be the response?

Umm.. that the brain bone's connected to the neck bone?


You're mischaracterizing my position on point 2.

So who gets to judge if someone has given it a proper chance? You? What does "put your skepticism aside" actually mean? Does it mean not actually asking for evidence?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Well, who decides when the study is large enough and when it's well done enough to be believed?
Nobody. Everybody. Confusing, isn't it?
Is that not an individual decision based on individuals' experience with studies and maybe even with the particular investigators?
No. And no. Care to try again? What should be different in the next study? How is that decided? What is the real process here?

[thaiboxerken]

Some people just don't understand how valuable skepticism is or what it is. Suggestologist is one of those people. He doesn't understand that investigation and asking for evidence is skepticism. He wants people to place their skepticism aside, which means what? It means to simply believe what's being sold and fall for it. Maybe Suggestologist works for an homeopathy marketing agency.

Then again, he simply won't place skepticism aside and buy my car for $100K. I guess he's a hypocrit.

[Loon]

I don't think anyone really knows where belief comes from. There's probably several doctorates out there for the person who figures it out.



Originally posted bySuggestologist
Your opinion is not as potent as someone who has participated in it, if you haven't. There are always elements you learn by participation that you won't learn by reading about it.


I think we've all found the place the disagreement stems from. Suggestologist places personal experience (ancedotes?) much higher on the tree of evidentiary value that the rest of us do. I would hazard that any debate about more specific issues is pointless (from a convince-the-other-guy point of view) unless this issue is resolved.


Originally posted by Suggestologist
Sitting on this chair, I believe that it's there under me. If I stand up, I still believe it's there. If I attempt to sit back on it, and someone has moved it, my belief that it's there immediately changes as I tumble to the floor. See how easy it is to change beliefs?


But this is far simpler than a belief in a full blown system. And note that the belief in the presence of the chair actually led you to fall on the floor. Is this the problem with a false belief? :P

The chair belief was also tested very strongly. Their is no other reasonable explanation than "the chair is not there." A Reiki healing does have other possible explanations- like the immune system or the placebo effect.

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects.


I don't think this is exactly correct. You only need to show that it works better than placebo (certainly, I think this would be the case for the JREF million). Actual therapeutic use is another story, though. It would depend on the current therapy for whatever the condition is.



Originally posted by Suggestologist
What we're talking about are people who are not even in the room at the time of the magic trick. They can't comment on what happened and how it happened because they weren't there.


Not true. Especially if one of the people you are talking to is a pro magician themselves. Simple magic tricks are proof that our senses are not completely accurate.



Originally posted by Suggestologist
And if one were to suggest that one's brain is connected to one's immune system, what would be the response?


"You know about psychoneuroimmunology, too?" might be a response. But if the sum total of reiki's effect is the placebo effect/suggestion (I see the two as linked, the latter merely taking advantage of the former), why not just use regualr hypnosis? Then there's no need for pseudoscientific energy fields or what have you.

To put a finer point on this question: Why bother with Reiki when hypnosis does the same thing with less effort and less smoke and mirrors, while at the same time not lying to the client or deluding the practitioner? Hypnotists don't need to be "attuned."

[magicflute]

posted by Suggestologist

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, a Reiki guy actually tried to cure me of a headache and failed. I didn't pay any money, he was trying to prove himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did you give it an honest chance. Did you put your skepticism aside for the moment?


Gee, I don't recall reading on any bottle of aspirins, tylenol, advil, etc, that I must "put my skepticism aside for the moment" in order for the pill to work.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Loon
I don't think this is exactly correct. You only need to show that it works better than placebo (certainly, I think this would be the case for the JREF million).

You're right, of course. Mind you, how do you do a placebo reiki session?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Some people just don't understand how valuable skepticism is or what it is. Suggestologist is one of those people. He doesn't understand that investigation and asking for evidence is skepticism. He wants people to place their skepticism aside, which means what? It means to simply believe what's being sold and fall for it. Maybe Suggestologist works for an homeopathy marketing agency.

Then again, he simply won't place skepticism aside and buy my car for $100K. I guess he's a hypocrit.

Again, thaiboxer, you have not sold me on the car. Just as I'm not sold on the idea of Atlantis. They are both uninteresting to me.

Now, I've also said that I'm not sold on Reiki, but if someone offered to do a free demonstration, I would not decline.

I think the problem is that you're mixing resources (money) in with hypothesis testing. Those are separate things for me.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Loon
The chair belief was also tested very strongly. Their is no other reasonable explanation than "the chair is not there." A Reiki healing does have other possible explanations- like the immune system or the placebo effect.

Well, there are other possible explanations. I may have accidentally turned to face a slightly different direction without noticing, for example.

I'm really surprised sometimes by the lack of imagination of some of the skeptics here. :)

Not true. Especially if one of the people you are talking to is a pro magician themselves. Simple magic tricks are proof that our senses are not completely accurate.

I agree with that. But recall how you came to believe that. Was it through experiencing a magic trick that proved your own senses (and your causal modeling) could not be fully trusted? Or did you just read about how people are fooled by tricks.

"You know about psychoneuroimmunology, too?" might be a response. But if the sum total of reiki's effect is the placebo effect/suggestion (I see the two as linked, the latter merely taking advantage of the former)

I see placebo effect as a subset of suggestion. I see placebo as the expectancy component.

Though, I have been curious recently as to whether placebos could actually be conditioned responses in some cases. For example, you swallow what you beleive to be an aspirin pill and you feel better due to the drug effect. You do this, let's say, 30 times over 10 years. Could this not be the basis of a conditioned immune response when you now swallow a sugar pill you believe to be the active aspirin?

, why not just use regualr hypnosis? Then there's no need for pseudoscientific energy fields or what have you.

I agree that the energy fields are not "real" (I'm 97% certain :) ). They are metaphorical, just like many interventions involving hypnosis utilize metaphor. And a principal metaphor in hypnosis is the metaphor of "conscious" vs. "unconscious".

Now, you may say that of course we can see that there really is something called "consciousness" and something else called "unconsciousness". But these are just word labels (anchors) which organize our understanding of different types of behaviors and thoughts into categories. Thought field metaphors just organize the categories differently. I agree that they do not
"exist" outside of the mind. However, they may or may not be more useful for the particular intervention.

To put a finer point on this question: Why bother with Reiki when hypnosis does the same thing with less effort and less smoke and mirrors, while at the same time not lying to the client or deluding the practitioner? Hypnotists don't need to be "attuned."

It helps if the hypnotist gains rapport, and paces the ongoing experience of the hypnotic subject. I'm not sure if that's analogous to being "attuned" in reiki. Perhaps you can educate me on what that means. Another possibility is just that the hypnotist needs to be in the right frame of mind for hypnotising someone; in other words, sometimes it is useful to be in a light hypnotic state yourself before hypnotising somebody else -- it can make you more congruent and thus easier to follow.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I agree with that. But recall how you came to believe that. Was it through experiencing a magic trick that proved your own senses (and your causal modeling) could not be fully trusted? Or did you just read about how people are fooled by tricks.


It came from optical illusions (my ruler says the lines are the same length, but my eyes tell me differently) and my younger brother being into magic. I learned a lot of tricks from him (I'm but a two-trick magician myself). The part about magic indicating the fallability of the human senses came from this forum, though I don't remember whose post it was. Maybe it was a commentary. I'm not quite sure how this is relevant (perhaps because I'm sorta sleepy), but I'm pretty sure you've got a point to make about it.

Originally posted by Suggestologist
You do this, let's say, 30 times over 10 years. Could this not be the basis of a conditioned immune response when you now swallow a sugar pill you believe to be the active aspirin?


My understanding of suggestion and placebos and whatnot certainly says it would be, to some degree. Not exactly sure how to test it, but I think we could come up with something.


Originally posted by Suggestologist
Now, you may say that of course we can see that there really is something called "consciousness" and something else called "unconsciousness". But these are just word labels (anchors) which organize our understanding of different types of behaviors and thoughts into categories. Thought field metaphors just organize the categories differently.

I think this is the sort of thing that loses a lot of people here. This is a very fancy way of saying (with additional jargon thrown in) "Words are arbitrary things."


Originally posted by Suggestologist
I agree that they do not
"exist" outside of the mind. However, they may or may not be more useful for the particular intervention.


But why go to all the trouble of having this expansive theory when regular old hypnosis will will do the trick just fine. A skilled hypnotist can gain rapport without having to talk about energy fields. Remember, Reiki is not self-evident. Someone had to come up with the idea. They may not have known that they were doing hypnosis type stuff, but now that we know they were, why not just discard the whole bulky framework of reiki and do the "1000 times deeper" bit?

I heard someone say once that it doesn't matter if it's true, it's just a model. Judge it by the results. But the results here seem (based on more than one anecdote :) ) to indicate that hypnosis does everything Reiki claims to do.

In fact, even if energy fields are real, why worry about them if they have no more effect than hypnosis? You get the same benefit but you need a *whole* lot more theory to explain it.

Originally posted by Suggestologist
It helps if the hypnotist gains rapport, and paces the ongoing experience of the hypnotic subject. I'm not sure if that's analogous to being "attuned" in reiki. Perhaps you can educate me on what that means.

I'll try, but it may be the blind leading the blind. My understanding of the matter is a quite shaky, but I'll give it my best shot. Perhaps some of the other posters who have had or seen Reiki or talked about it with people can assist me. Being attuned in Reiki is something like becoming an antenna. You learn to feel the spirits of something, and then they act through you. Or maybe it's more like learning about wine. To the uninitiated, like myself, most wines taste pretty much the same. But a wine expert has a lot of experience with the stuff and can tell you all sorts of things about a wine.

Or at least, I think that's the theory. There might be something about guiding spirits, too.

In other words, it looks to me like Reiki offers nothing beyond a very complicated (and unnecessary) framework in which to do hypnosis work.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Loon


It came from optical illusions (my ruler says the lines are the same length, but my eyes tell me differently) and my younger brother being into magic. I learned a lot of tricks from him (I'm but a two-trick magician myself). The part about magic indicating the fallability of the human senses came from this forum, though I don't remember whose post it was. Maybe it was a commentary. I'm not quite sure how this is relevant (perhaps because I'm sorta sleepy), but I'm pretty sure you've got a point to make about it.

The point is that you gained experience and then learned a model of why that experience worked the way it did. Without the experience, the model wouldn't make visceral sense.

My understanding of suggestion and placebos and whatnot certainly says it would be, to some degree. Not exactly sure how to test it, but I think we could come up with something.

Well, I see at least two distinct possibilities for how placebo works. And while they may work in conjunction, it seems that at times only one of the two is at work.

On the one hand, we have expectancy created by establishing mental sets -- which increases responsiveness to some stimuli and decreases responsiveness to other stimuli based on mental activation. In other words, if you were looking for a loose diamond on the carpet, you would ignore bread crumbs -- yeah, bad example, but it's what came to mind.

On the other hand, we have conditioning which doesn't require establishment of expectancy sets. You hear a loud noise and you automatically wince or duck your head and have a bad gut feeling. You train your fingers to type and you don't have to stay aware of the exact muscle movements of your fingers anymore. You can train your "gut" to respond to minimal cues, and you can develop trust in your "gut reaction".

So Expectancy is like: look for the diamond (presupposing the diamond exists). Conditioning is like: Learn to trust your gut reaction by giving it feedback on whether it was wrong or right. Or: Learn to trust your typing fingers by giving them feedback on whether they pressed the right button or not.

I think this is the sort of thing that loses a lot of people here. This is a very fancy way of saying (with additional jargon thrown in) "Words are arbitrary things."

Well, it's true. :)

But why go to all the trouble of having this expansive theory when regular old hypnosis will will do the trick just fine. A skilled hypnotist can gain rapport without having to talk about energy fields.

Mesmer liked the energy fields metaphor. :) Erickson used the metaphor of flattening synapses when dealing with pain control. The only way we can know which is better is to try it out. Reiki is definately more elaborate than most hypnosis metaphors. But detail does make things seem more real.

Remember, Reiki is not self-evident. Someone had to come up with the idea. They may not have known that they were doing hypnosis type stuff, but now that we know they were, why not just discard the whole bulky framework of reiki and do the "1000 times deeper" bit?

I prefer "double it", "triple that", "all the way down".

I heard someone say once that it doesn't matter if it's true, it's just a model. Judge it by the results. But the results here seem (based on more than one anecdote :) ) to indicate that hypnosis does everything Reiki claims to do.

Oh, but you see, you don't really know that. It's all anecdotal. So we have to spend mucho dinero studying if Reiki can actually work better than other hypnotic techniques. Because, remember, hypnosis isn't a technique -- it's what you do when you get in the hypnosis that is the technique -- and it differs widely. And some techniques are effective, and that's based on scientific studies, and nobody would mind if those studies were replicated as long as they do the same technique precisely correctly. And inevitably, some techniques aren't effective.

And then you get people who criticise particular hypnotic techniques because they look like cognitive behavioral therapy. Albert Ellis, who created RET (rational-emotive therapy), the forerunner to CBT; used hypnosis in conjunction with RET. Ellis even presented workshops at Ericksonian Hypnosis Congresses.

In fact, even if energy fields are real, why worry about them if they have no more effect than hypnosis? You get the same benefit but you need a *whole* lot more theory to explain it.

Ah, here's the thing. Watch what happens when you study something that utilizes "energy fields" and get positive results. The scientific community will criticise the experiment, because, of course, there are no energy fields. They'll miss the point completely. They'll take people into the physics lab and try to find them energy fields. And when they don't, they'll declare that people didn't really get better because the energy fields don't really exist. They'll confuse the result with the theory behind the technique that brought about the result. Even Ben Franklin did.

In other words, it looks to me like Reiki offers nothing beyond a very complicated (and unnecessary) framework in which to do hypnosis work.

It's likely a hypnotic technique. Whether it works better than other hypnotic techniques needs to be studied. Who's got a few $million sitting around to conduct a "well done" large (replicated by different lead investigators) study? Yes, and let's double-blind the Reiki practitioners so that they don't know whether or not they're really doing Reiki or sham Reiki -- yeah, that's workable.

[BillHoyt]

Suggestologist,

Some questions (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870386207&highlight=confusing#post1870386207)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Nobody. Everybody. Confusing, isn't it?

No. And no. Care to try again? What should be different in the next study? How is that decided? What is the real process here?

Subjective, isn't it?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Subjective, isn't it?
My post was rather short and rather unlikely to have been so drastically misunderstood. So, would you care to read it again, see that I clearly do not agree with this claim of subjectivity. Would you, in short, care to address my questions? If, however, you prefer to play games, may I suggest either a sandbox or a video arcade?

[Dancing David]

On the placebo thing, you left out the largest reason for the placebo effect, regression to the mean.

Most people do not seek help until they feel really really really bad, there are a certain percent who will return to thier mean without any intervention. So regression to the mean. To really test the placebo effect you would need a fairy pill that disappears, as a control against the placebo.

[Jeff Corey]

Good point about regression to the mean. One of the threats to internal validity described by Cambell and Stanley, also see the Sports Illustrated Jinx in Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn;t So", the book that I would most like to be updated for my Critical Behavior course,

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Dancing David
On the placebo thing, you left out the largest reason for the placebo effect, regression to the mean.

Most people do not seek help until they feel really really really bad, there are a certain percent who will return to thier mean without any intervention. So regression to the mean. To really test the placebo effect you would need a fairy pill that disappears, as a control against the placebo.

I thought that I have seen some studies where there is a no-treatment group (or whatever they call it) that receives neither placebo nor active pill. They basically leave them on the "waiting list" or something.

The fact that placebo often does better than no treatment at all should point to the reason why such things as Reiki are probably more helpful than hurtful to social health. As Bandler has joked, "Since it's a placebo cure, it will last forever."

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Nobody. Everybody. Confusing, isn't it?

Confusion comes before understanding something new. I'm not confused.

Science is misused as authority rather than as a source of information for individual verification and individual logical evaluation against experience.

No. And no. Care to try again? What should be different in the next study? How is that decided? What is the real process here?

It seems to be decided in many cases by availability of funding. The real process is sometimes corporate interest directed.

[Peter S.]

Here's what the National Council Against Health Fraud has to say about Reiki.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reiki.html

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Peter S.
Here's what the National Council Against Health Fraud has to say about Reiki.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reiki.html

Such articles are of no use in a conversation with people like Suggestologist. He would have you believe that personal experience is better than all the evidence in the world. How can you know that Reiki is just power of suggestion unless you actually tried.

Yes, it sounds like a stupid opinion..........but consider the source.

I have to wonder how many people don't get real medical treatment because they are getting this quackery done instead. It reminds me of the commentary story where a lady lost her child to alternative medicine.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Confusion comes before understanding something new. I'm not confused.
Perhaps you've forgotten that you posed the question about who decides when the study is to be believed? Perhaps you've forgotten that you are the one claiming that personal experience trumps the scientific process?

Science is misused as authority rather than as a source of information for individual verification and individual logical evaluation against experience.
I can't help nor be held responsible for some people misusing the discipline. But you shifted the topic here, didn't you? The topic was "how do we know what we know." You claim personal experience is epistemologically sound, but clearly it is not. The complexity of the scientific process has grown in response to the realization of just how many ways we can misunderstand, misconstrue and are willing to misrepresent in some cases, our personal experience. This is exactly why scientists have added layers well beyond the basic rules of sound research design. These layers amount to a system of intersubjective validation.


It seems to be decided in many cases by availability of funding. The real process is sometimes corporate interest directed.
Here you are engaging in two errors. One is the fallacy of the subject/motive shift. The other error is to mistake a halting of further research for the scientific community having decided an issue. They are not the same at all.