Hitting a brick wall

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!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting a brick wall

epepke said:


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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the connection to the film you wrote about...
 
Mercutio said:
I try to let the punishment fit the crime.
Click to expand...


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,
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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 )
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
Oleron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you fed a whole busload of trolls!:D
 
Mercutio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:

Zep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Loon said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
“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!
 
TheBoyPaj said:
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.
Click to expand...


How much do you know about Reiki?
 
Suggestologist said:


How much do you know about Reiki?
Click to expand...

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.
 
thaiboxerken said:


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.
Click to expand...

When you don't know what you're talking about, you have no credibility to speak of.
 
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.
 
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?
 
TheBoyPaj said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom