Ok, let's try to prove it without the link.

Galileo Galilei had a series of specific tests that would let experimenters confirm his laws with their own senses, he believed that independent confirmation is the ultimate way of verifying facts.

Now, I want you to engage in a thought experiment, you can stop and think at each point.

Take a moment to think about a good memory, stop reading, and when you are ready, read the next part. Chances are that you imagine a scene from your life as vividly as if you were there, right? Now jump inside the picture, move yourself around and see it from different angles, see the colors become more vivid, now distance yourself and see the whole picture. Get close again and focus on your favorite part.

You are now under control, and can shape things the way you want to. Now imagine a lever that says “Control”, now grab it and slowly start moving it. Actually imagine doing it, now as you turn the lever, make the image feel more real, colors get brighter, you start to notice sounds and if you wish, you can make them louder of softer, or you can stop them altogether.

This is called anchoring, you take a sensation and associate it with a trigger, in this case the lever. Now whenever you wish, you can pull the lever again and re-trigger that feeling and memory if you want to. You could use anything as a trigger: a word, sound, situation etc.

Even if the content remains the same, when you change the quality of the picture, its size, brightness, distance, and color, your whole experience changes.

bogdan9310 wrote:Ok, let's try to prove it without the link.

Perhaps you could use a little study on proof techniques.

bogdan9310 wrote:
Take a moment to think about a good memory, stop reading, and when you are ready, read the next part.

Professionals recognize that memory is notoriously unreliable. You seem hell-bent on proving something about the world by using the way it seems to you. You would not be the first filosofeezer to make that mistake.

bogdan9310 wrote:
Even if the content remains the same, when you change the quality of the picture, its size, brightness, distance, and color, your whole experience changes.

I scream, you scream, we all scream for anecdotes.

bogdan9310 wrote:This is called anchoring

Thank you, Teacher. May I have another whack from that paddle of yours?

bogdan9310 wrote:
Be that as it may, you are still not providing arguments.

Dude, you completely missed the part where you proved you're a world-class authority on anything but sticking your head a little farther up your ass than it was yesterday.

bogdan9310 wrote:Ok, let's try to prove it without the link.

Galileo Galilei had a series of specific tests that would let experimenters confirm his laws with their own senses, he believed that independent confirmation is the ultimate way of verifying facts.

Now, I want you to engage in a thought experiment, you can stop and think at each point.

Take a moment to think about a good memory, stop reading, and when you are ready, read the next part. Chances are that you imagine a scene from your life as vividly as if you were there, right? Now jump inside the picture, move yourself around and see it from different angles, see the colors become more vivid, now distance yourself and see the whole picture. Get close again and focus on your favorite part.

You are now under control, and can shape things the way you want to. Now imagine a lever that says “Control”, now grab it and slowly start moving it. Actually imagine doing it, now as you turn the lever, make the image feel more real, colors get brighter, you start to notice sounds and if you wish, you can make them louder of softer, or you can stop them altogether.

This is called anchoring, you take a sensation and associate it with a trigger, in this case the lever. Now whenever you wish, you can pull the lever again and re-trigger that feeling and memory if you want to. You could use anything as a trigger: a word, sound, situation etc.

Even if the content remains the same, when you change the quality of the picture, its size, brightness, distance, and color, your whole experience changes.

Plagiarism isn't clever, good sir.

Edit: ah I see you're just copy pasting crap from the same crappy website. Why would anyone bother paying attention to you?

bogdan9310 wrote:Take a moment to think about a good memory, stop reading, and when you are ready, read the next part. Chances are that you imagine a scene from your life as vividly as if you were there, right?

Wrong.

I'm pretty sure nobody has this capacity. For example, imagine a book you liked, but read at least five years ago. Now visualise the 7th letter of the 7th word on the 14th line of the 77th page.

Can't do it, right? Because the memory is much less vivid than actually looking at that page.

Derren Brown is an expert in NLP, and he basically says its bollocks (along with subliminal messages and the body language reading stuff he does), and all of the 'techniques' he uses in his shows are actually good old-fashioned magic tricks. Ironically, that doesn't stop the NLP crowd from using his videos as evidence that it works.

When it's some company trying to teach their sales staff to sell more holidays are whatever, I don't really care. But when it starts getting involved in education, it's a bit more problematic. Education seems to be a sector that is rife with pseudoscience. There are still people who believe the left-brain, right-brain thing, learning styles, we only use 10% of the brain, and of course NLP. And not just some fringe group. There are still industry magazines to this day publishing articles suggesting NLP as an effective teaching technique. And that's one of the key indicators that something is bullshit, because it claims to be able to do everything. NLP claims to be able to help you learn a language, quit smoking, get over phobias, beat depression, sell products, and cure learning disorders. Like homeopathy, the thing that does absolutely nothing can claim to do everything.

bogdan9310 wrote:Ok, let's try to prove it without the link.

Galileo Galilei had a series of specific tests that would let experimenters confirm his laws with their own senses, he believed that independent confirmation is the ultimate way of verifying facts.

Now, I want you to engage in a thought experiment, you can stop and think at each point.

Take a moment to think about a good memory, stop reading, and when you are ready, read the next part.

Okay.

Chances are that you imagine a scene from your life as vividly as if you were there, right?

Er, no.

Now jump inside the picture, move yourself around and see it from different angles, see the colors become more vivid, now distance yourself and see the whole picture. Get close again and focus on your favorite part.

You are now under control, and can shape things the way you want to. Now imagine a lever that says “Control”, now grab it and slowly start moving it. Actually imagine doing it, now as you turn the lever,

I don't think you know what a lever is. Maybe you should try imagining one, vividly.

make the image feel more real, colors get brighter, you start to notice sounds and if you wish, you can make them louder of softer, or you can stop them altogether.

This is called anchoring, you take a sensation and associate it with a trigger, in this case the lever. Now whenever you wish, you can pull the lever again and re-trigger that feeling and memory if you want to. You could use anything as a trigger: a word, sound, situation etc.

Even if the content remains the same, when you change the quality of the picture, its size, brightness, distance, and color, your whole experience changes.

Well that was disappointing. Got any actual research? No, of course you don't. If you did, you'd post that instead of the wibble above.

I copy/pasted from the website because I wrote it.
You are not even trying to see my point. I provided you with proof, and you refuse to see it. What more can I do? You need to look into it yourself, and stop waiting for someone else to prove something for you. I get you are not used to doing this, but you have to think.
Independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, if you don't want to think, that's not on me.

You are not even trying to see my point. I provided you with proof, and you refuse to see it.

Ignoring the baggage associated with the word 'proof', you haven't provided any proof at all, you've merely claimed stuff.
Learn the difference between making a claim and providing evidence that supports that claim.

What more can I do?

Provide some robust evidence.

You need to look into it yourself

No, we don't. Look up burden of proof

and stop waiting for someone else to prove something for you.

Two lines ago you claimed you had provided proof. Now we have find it for ourselves. You're not being coherent at this point.

I get you are not used to doing this, but you have to think.

And you need to get used to the Forum User Agreement vis-a-vis personal attacks.

Independent confirmation is the ultimate proof

Wrong. The plural of anecdote is not data.

if you don't want to think, that's not on me.

The problem for you is, there actually is a lot of thinking going on here.

bogdan9310 wrote:
What more can I do

Mental phenomena that occur within the mind are not scientific because they cannot be demonstrated
Your thought experiment falls within this description so is therefore invalid regardless of anything else

Quoting from your own web site means you have a confirmation bias in favour of the findings
But scientists deliberately seek out ways that will instead potentially falsify their hypotheses

You therefore need to come with up a testable hypothesis that can be observed and replicated
Then focus upon falsifying rather than confirming it because that is how science actually works

bogdan9310 wrote:You are not even trying to see my point. I provided you with proof, and you refuse to see it.

No, you didn't. You provided us with assertions that were completely unfounded, and where checkable, completely untrue.

bogdan9310 wrote:What more can I do?

Explain where you have sourced your material. Engage with constructive disagreement. Acknowledge some of the errors that are plainly present.

bogdan9310 wrote:I get you are not used to doing this, but you have to think.

This is not something you "get", at all. Again, it's not true. What it would be is a convenient and lazy way of dismissing meaningful and important objections.

bogdan9310 wrote:Independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, if you don't want to think, that's not on me.

And conversely if people are happy to think, and you're lazily inventing this as an excuse to dismiss what people actually say, that is on you.

bogdan9310 wrote:I copy/pasted from the website because I wrote it.

I know that.

You are not even trying to see my point.

I decline the invitation to put effort into engaging with a lump of text pre-written by you and simply copy-pasted here.

I provided you with proof, and you refuse to see it.

You didn't provide proof.

What more can I do?

You can learn what the word means.

You need to look into it yourself, and stop waiting for someone else to prove something for you.

I need do nothing. If you come here with a claim, it is incumbent on you to provide support for it. You want us to accept something, we don't care either way. It's on you.

I get you are not used to doing this, but you have to think.

Here is another good example of why talking with you seems rather fruitless. You don't 'get' any such thing. You have neither met nor spoken with me. You have literally no idea what I am used to doing. Yet you feel comfortable to casually fabricate nonsense about my thinking experience. Someone who so nonchalantly makes things up is not worth my time.

Independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, if you don't want to think, that's not on me.

You don't appear to know what words mean. Come back when you do and wave your penie about.

Fallible wrote:... Come back when you do and wave your penie about.

Ooooh, is pasta night?

bogdan9310 wrote:I copy/pasted from the website because I wrote it.
You are not even trying to see my point.

I am, you're just failing at making it. It isn't everyone else's fault that you can't make your point.

I provided you with proof, and you refuse to see it.

You promised a hot fudge sundae, delivered a piece of lint, and are now blaming me because I've pointed out that it isn't a hot fudge sundae. You're either blinded by your own bullshit, or you're trolling.

What more can I do?

Provide what you're actually claiming you can provide, for a start.

You need to look into it yourself, and stop waiting for someone else to prove something for you.

Translation: "I've got nothing, but look into this thing I want you to be convinced about anyway." Nathanks. If it's as lame as your explanation, I'm all set.

I get you are not used to doing this, but you have to think.

This is hilarious considering the complete lack of thought in your posts. I know you're enthralled by your mindless drivel, but don't get pissy when others aren't so impressed.

Independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, if you don't want to think I can't actually make my point, that's not on me.

fify

Explain where you have sourced your material. Engage with constructive disagreement. Acknowledge some of the errors that are plainly present.

I made it up, and I've put a lot of work into it too.
I don't have other evidence, because I'm not rich, and can't hire scientists to prove it for me.
Work with what you have, and if not, that's fine. But don't shoot a potential good idea to the bin just because you can't understand it.
And again, independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, and I provide you with the tools to check it out for yourselves.

bogdan9310 wrote:

Explain where you have sourced your material. Engage with constructive disagreement. Acknowledge some of the errors that are plainly present.

I made it up,

That's glaringly obvious

and I've put a lot of work into it too.

If that's true, it's incredibly sad.

I don't have other evidence, because I'm not rich, and can't hire scientists to prove it for me.
Work with what you have, and if not, that's fine. But don't shoot a potential good idea to the bin just because you can't understand it.

Okay! I'll just shoot your shit idea in the bin because it objectively doesn't work. No rich scientists necessary.

And again, independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, and I provide you with the tools to check it out for yourselves.

Yeah, and it failed. I'm shocked that when it failed, you blamed everyone else. I'm taking a wild guess that this happens everywhere you go, and it's always everyone else's fault.

bogdan9310 wrote:

Explain where you have sourced your material. Engage with constructive disagreement. Acknowledge some of the errors that are plainly present.

I made it up, and I've put a lot of work into it too.
I don't have other evidence, because I'm not rich, and can't hire scientists to prove it for me.
Work with what you have, and if not, that's fine. But don't shoot a potential good idea to the bin just because you can't understand it.
And again, independent confirmation is the ultimate proof, and I provide you with the tools to check it out for yourselves.

It's be researched by loads of scientists. Maybe you could read some of the mountains of research that already exist and draw your conclusions from that.

My thoughts about neuro-linguistic programming are it's probably a load of bollox, More or less. But hey, my chakras have been giving me hell recently, I could be wrong.

don't they have creme for that ?

Try new and improved ChakraEase!