SpheresOfBalance wrote:The same as you would!
No, I know it's not 'hot air' but I can't convince you of this but then I truly don't care to.
Never lost it!
So let me get this right, you knew my name and yet claim that you were not playing a psycho-babble mind game?
Go ahead and try and discredit what you fear
What are you babbling about now!?
You got my name wrong and now you have it right, what's the problem? Apart from that you wanted to play your little mind game so as to assuage your sexism and dismiss my thoughts but thats a whole 'mother issue that you should raise with your shrink if you ever see her again.
I knew you regretted letting it out in the first place, Kimberly!
Who?
And what have I regretted letting out?
Too funny that you 'know' all these things and yet spend an inordinate amount of time telling me that this can't be done?
Oh boy!
No seriously, you said 'Is that' and I have no idea what the 'Is' or the 'that' referred to?
Not according to Wikipedia. ...
Bill now you.
your edification:
"Bandler and Grinder claim that the skills of exceptional people can be "modeled" using NLP methodology, then those skills can be acquired by anyone.[3][4][5][6][7] Bandler and Grinder also claim that NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, myopia,[8] allergy, common cold,[9] and learning disorders, often in a single session.[10][11][12][13] NLP has been adopted by some hypnotherapists and in seminars marketed to business and government.[14][15]
The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][16] and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents." --Wikipedia--
They missed out teachers and policemen
For your philosophical education - show me where they claim to be a science?
For your pyschoanalytic education - Ironic that after the pseudo-scientists of Psychoanalysis led the attack upon NLP they introduced CBT which is pretty much the same thing but in this case they can keep on charging their fees whereas NLP teaches one how to do it and can only charge once for the same thing. Of course, as I've said numerous times, like Psychoanalysis, NLP is full of charlatans and those who can't walk the talk and one should be very wary of many NLP 'teachers' or that one can learn it from books.
In the first sentence above I can see why you got into it, huh 'Arising United Kingdom.' So quick to cling to country, above all others. As if it's necessarily a reflection of you. ...
i can understand why you and Bill get along as you both suffer from selective reading and confirmation bias, you have the extra infirmity of thinking everyone is a liar, so I won't, once again, bother explaining that unlike you my nik was largely circumstance and that unlike you I didn't choose it to represent an imaginary facet of my character.
Who was that exceptional person your tried to model yourself after, as the exceptional person you believe yourself to be?
My dad was one exceptional person with a couple of aspects I tried to model but it's not about one person nor the whole person but any specific skills one thinks that they have that one would like to start to acquire quickly, although it's not that one can be them nor just instantly gain all the skills, its about modelling the transferable soft-skills involved in the behaviour as like anything you still have to learn the job.
Notice that last sentence on how it's largely ineffectual, and full of factual errors.
Don't doubt it as it is just a methodology but given the techniques are all from Psychology and Psychoanalysis I guess they don't like looking in a mirror.
Funny you should bring all this up - mainly I know because you are under the delusion that you are somehow 'getting under my skin' but personally I thank you for the publicity you bring to the subject of NLP upon this forum as I think many would find it of interest if they took a read of the actual original material - as many moons ago I had just this conversation with a friend, who studied philosophy with me, who went on to become a psychoanalyst and he too hated the idea of NLP but when I asked him to look for actual double-bind studies he said there were few but to his chagrin the ones he did find did show that NLP had results with phobias, mild depression and psychosomatic illnesses. It's this that leads me to believe why CBT is now the first goto approach for most of these issues.
you claim to know something, tisk, tisk, tisk!
I do know something and that's that I don't take wiki as my source of knowledge over and above actually experiencing what I talk about.
All this is double-funny given your rants about those who think academic study gives them a right to talk about what they know. 'God' helps us, a wiki 'educated' generation. Books! I need no steenkin' books!!
Oh, am I pushing your buttons? That title and cover appealed to you didn't it?. I'm sorry ole wise one.
Nope, the content and the back-cover blurb is what appealed to me as I don't judge a book by its cover.
Yet that's not how you reduced it down.
Thats exactly how I've reduced it down and its an accurate summation.
Your summation of your long version, which was good and right by the way, seriously. When I read your long version I thought you pretty intelligent. But that summation of yours, that you thought so bright, made it look as though all misconception was on the part of EVERYONE but you. ...
Show me where?
That everyone else failed but you. ...
Since I think there is no failure, just feedback I doubt this.
Which goes hand in hand with your modeling, through NLP, of someone exceptional due to your believed exceptionalness, that the UK is Arising, but more importantly that it's a direct reflection of you, that you're right in all things philosophical, that you have the right to poke fun at people, (boob, etc) "oh but I have all these credentials that say I can abuse people," like you did godfree. ...
I'll tell you once more and then I won't bother again, you and all the others are on a philosophy forum, as such it behoves you to engage philosophically in conversation if someone critiques your thoughts, if you do not do this then expect to be abused and have fun poked at you as it is you abusing the forum and what it stands for. I have only ever brought-up my credentials when someone says 'so what gives you the right to say that about philosophy?' as that right was a hard-earned one and if that upsets others then quite honestly tough! As there are innumerable new-age feel-good psycho-babble social network sites upon the web where one can go get their beliefs stroked and confirmed, whereas lightly moderated philosophy forums are rare and as such I think it my duty to critique the thoughts of those who come here rather than just let whatever nonsense pass for philosophy. I could be a total pain and just name and categorise pretty much every thought that appears upon this forum as Philosophy has been around for a few thousand years and many are deluded that what they think is unique and original, obviously it is original to them but its, in the main, not unique, but I don't as I understand the drive of the budding philosopher and so instead I engage in plain English and post the critiques in pretty much jargon free language so that, if interested, they can develop their thoughts. But I save the 'abuse' for those who obviously are not here to philosophise or abuse first.
So never wonder why I sometimes call you a megalomaniac, you show all the classic signs.
No, this is your therapization. What I show is a philosophical academic education that gets exasperated at times and especially with those who talk about what they don't know but do it with great authority. On top of that I've taken tests for both megalomania and psychopathy and was happy to discover that I'm neither, have you?
Yet all you actually do is twist words, assert that they apply, then believe you made a case. ...
No, I believe I've made a case and await the reasons why I haven't, its called philosophising.
Becasue who said so? Because you said so. The voice of reason? I think not.
You can think what you like, just back it up with apposite critique instead of your usual displacement activities.
As it was you that said to hell with our children's, children's children, we're all going to die anyway, lets burn the place down!
Show me where I said this?
Voice of reason?? I think not!
I'm guessing that I would have had a reason for saying so, so show me where I said this.
I don't think you know whether you're coming or going, just that you've honed and arguing technique that's effective with some people. Which is actually hollow and meaningless.
Compared to what?
Are you smart enough to realize that the same can be said of you? Or not? This is how you usually proceed, which is why you are so tiring. And it's endless with you. "You are, no you are, no you are," like a little girl you seem to want to play, arising. OK, maybe a little boy. But "little" certainly!
This whole farrago is about you playing the 'white-knight' to satisfy your issues, that it turns into this tit-for-tat is because with you it always turns into this and has with pretty much every person you've interacted with upon this forum who does not agree with what you say.
Oh, but I'll always appreciate the time you give. In that you are flawless.
Is it an American thing? As I'm getting bored with yours and Bills empty platitudes and with telling you how much I don't care about your emotions.