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

[Senex]

Oh?

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

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

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

 

[JFrankA]

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

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

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

Sure. I'm open to it.

 

[Senex]

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

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

 

[tesscaline]

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

*shakes her head and walks away*

 

[Kuko 4000]

*shakes her head and walks away*

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

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

 

[not daSkeptic]

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

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

 

[Kuko 4000]

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

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

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

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

 

[Senex]

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

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

In my fictional world I'm a strict disciplinarian.

 

[tesscaline]

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

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

How is it different?

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

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

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

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

 

[Kuko 4000]

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

All the best,

Kuko

 

[Kuko 4000]

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Senex]

How is it different?

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

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

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

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

*shakes his head and walks away*

 

[tesscaline]

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

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

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

Here's the thing. I'm not discussing Jim in particular, so I'm not being optimistic. I make no comment on Jim at all other than to say that I see that he is being purposefully manipulative and therefore I am not buying in to the whole performance, and will not participate. I don't know his goals and I'm just not interested in being a part of someone else's show. Sure, I'm curious as to what the whole thing is about -- what the motives are, what the end result will be, etc. -- but I'd rather not become the lab rat in the experiment.

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

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

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

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

 

[Jim Callahan]

Smart Chick you are.

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

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

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

Best Wishes,

J im

H.o.A-X

 

[Azrael 5]

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

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

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

Best Wishes,

Jim

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

 

[Legend]

becouse

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

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

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

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

Alex.

 

[Senex]

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

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

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

Jim CallahanSmart Chick you are.

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

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

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

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

 

[Azrael 5]

Jim has a disorder alright.A personality one.

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

 

[Jim Callahan]

4 posts since mine and they all are lost.

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

Why?

Becouse you must!

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

J im

H.O.A-X

 

[Senex]

4 posts since mine and they all are lost.

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

Why?

Becouse you must!

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

J im

H.O.A-X

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