Keep It Real wrote:The way I interpreted what he wrote was like this: all the constant barrage of information targeting smokers, telling them they're killing themselves, creates a sense of sacrifice in the smokers mind. They think "smoking must be sooooo good if the government needs to scream in our faces like this constantly in order to even TRY and make us quit, so if I WERE to quit I'd clearly be giving up something delicious and delightful - what a sacrifice to make! No wonder I can't quit smoking!"

Claro?

I’m just marveling at the irony of this.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You haven't quite hit the mark.

All he's saying is you want to smoke because you enjoy it, so forcing yourself to stop doing it is a sacrifice because you're denying yourself that pleasure. That's all. Adding holograms or whatever bullshit doesn't clarify anything at all.

What is responsible for the difficulty is the mental addiction which causes us to feel that we’re making a sacrifice, that we’re being forced to give up a genuine pleasure or crutch and that we are therefore being deprived.

https://allencarr.com.au/physicaladdictionnicotine/

He also downplays nicotine addiction, which makes him a fucking quack. Nicotine is, by all objective measures, incredibly addictive.

WRONG - the mental addiction he's reffering to to is an entirely fabricated web of cognitive errors which INCLUDES to a very large degree (IMO) the cognitive error of creating "sacrifice holograms" as I have described in post #30.

I'll ask you too - have you actually read the book?

I don't read self-help quackery. I did better -- I quoted his very words right there for you to read. Meanwhile all you've done is posted your interpretation of his words, and as your posting history has shown, interpretation isn't your forte.

People enjoy and get pleasure out of smoking, that isn't a fabricated web of cognitive errors, it's a fact. By denying yourself that pleasure, you feel you are making a sacrifice.

You're on my ignore list for the foreseeable now SAM. I've had it with the inane stupidity of your posts. Goodbye.

felltoearth wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:The way I interpreted what he wrote was like this: all the constant barrage of information targeting smokers, telling them they're killing themselves, creates a sense of sacrifice in the smokers mind. They think "smoking must be sooooo good if the government needs to scream in our faces like this constantly in order to even TRY and make us quit, so if I WERE to quit I'd clearly be giving up something delicious and delightful - what a sacrifice to make! No wonder I can't quit smoking!"

Claro?

I’m just marveling at the irony of this.

Oooooh, irony - the cream in the coffee! Please explain fellto?

Keep It Real wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:The way I interpreted what he wrote was like this: all the constant barrage of information targeting smokers, telling them they're killing themselves, creates a sense of sacrifice in the smokers mind. They think "smoking must be sooooo good if the government needs to scream in our faces like this constantly in order to even TRY and make us quit, so if I WERE to quit I'd clearly be giving up something delicious and delightful - what a sacrifice to make! No wonder I can't quit smoking!"

Claro?

I’m just marveling at the irony of this.

Oooooh, irony - the cream in the coffee! Please explain fellto?

I think it’s fairly obvious to those paying attention.

Can’t help but notice you’re just posting shit again KIR, in lieu of providing support for your views.

It's funny how actually quoting the guy is inane stupidity in KIR's view, isn't it?

Indeed.

Do people actually read my posts at all? If you know of a way I can find the quote without listening to (presumable some large portion of) the whole 6.5 hour book again I'd appreciate it. If not, I will indeed undertake that task.

Yes, show that you have any sort of retention of the material at all and go to the part of the book where it would be. I would think if you're trying to convince people that you have enough grasp of the material that you can interpret it and concoct your own new ideas out of it, you could at least accomplish this basic task.

People read your posts, but sometimes the posts are so mind-bogglingly dumb it's difficult to formulate a response to them.

...

There’s really nothing more to talk about if you can’t demonstrate that you interpreted the material correctly, and in order to work that out, we need to see the material.

Keep It Real wrote:Do people actually read my posts at all? If you know of a way I can find the quote without listening to (presumable some large portion of) the whole 6.5 hour book again I'd appreciate it. If not, I will indeed undertake that task.

Obtain an e-copy of the printed book and do a search?

Tried to find one, couldn't. Anyway, TBH this whole "quote what Allen Carr wrote or why should we believe you're not just basing the theory on thin air" is fucking stupid. Why would the words and theories of a man who SAM described as a "quack" and Fallible as ..."not the best authority on smoking addiction, lets say" (although it should be noted that she has not provided the identity of a superior authority, despite being asked) hold any water in their eyes? It's just some shit he made up, no?

Again, you’re trying to blame people for not taking you at your word. There’s a reason I’m not taking you at your word, your word makes no sense. I wanted to see if the actual text made the point, and it was just your explanatory power that was off, or whether you just mistook or concocted what was said and used your mistake as a platform for an extraneous entity. So far it looks like the latter, because the part about being urged to stop smoking due to the harm it does, and photos, causing the desire to smoke, which you term sacrifice holograms, makes no sense. None. Occam’s razor. A source can be held in high esteem or none. That doesn’t alter the need to actually see it as the only way to know if it says what someone claims it does.

It looks to me like you have nothing. Without the actual quote, there’s no other conclusion. I am not minded to believe you, because you’ve done this sort of thing before.

Frankly, I'm pretty well flabbergasted that despite at least THREE perfectly adequate descriptions of the process of SHs, including this one, which is so fantastically easy to understand and straight-forward my 7 year nephew could probably manage it, you still do not. Maybe you can't teach an old addiction therapist new/revolutionary tricks I guess. That would be very sad.

Fallible wrote:It looks illogical to me.

It IS illogical! It's a cognitive "error" - a hologram, which appears to be substantive but which is in fact ittle more than smoke and mirrors.

Jesus, someone who is trained in psychology is telling you she can’t make heads or tails of what you’ve written. This is your failure or t(e failure of the source material. That’s what Fal is trying to figure out. It’s not a trick.

Keep It Real wrote:
It IS illogical! It's a cognitive "error" - a hologram, which appears to be substantive but which is in fact ittle more than smoke and mirrors.

Well, this seems to target those who find that the pure products of their imaginations appear in some way substantive. I'm far from denying this can happen, but I am also far from taking it seriously on your behalf.

felltoearth wrote:Jesus, someone who is trained in psychology is telling you she can’t make heads or tails of what you’ve written. This is your failure or t(e failure of the source material. That’s what Fal is trying to figure out. It’s not a trick.

I have qualifications in psychology too fellto, in case you didn't know.

Keep It Real wrote:qualifications in psychology

That's a mixed bag, KIR. No qualification is absolute, and reputation depends on one's capacity to demonstrate the expertise that the qualification supposedly underwrites. We can cut this short and just talk about the pointlessness of credential debates in this environment.

Keep It Real wrote:Frankly, I'm pretty well flabbergasted that despite at least THREE perfectly adequate descriptions of the process of SHs, including this one, which is so fantastically easy to understand and straight-forward my 7 year nephew could probably manage it, you still do not. Maybe you can't teach an old addiction therapist new/revolutionary tricks I guess. That would be very sad.

Is it supposed to mean something that you’re flabbergasted? Is it supposed to mean something that you think what you’ve offered is perfectly adequate? You very frequently lay the blame for misunderstandings, disagreements or unpleasantries at the door of your interlocutors or critics. There is a very recent thread where this has been unfolding in real time, and countless examples of you coming up with some half chewed psychobabble which people understandably shrug at, and that you continue to try to defend long after it’s become clear it was just something you shat out on a beery afternoon. It is, I think, so common that it could be classed as a KIR thing.

I told you why I don’t buy it. Your descriptions were not perfectly adequate. They make NO SENSE. If warnings to stop smoking created the desire to smoke, where did the smokers come from? No one would need to point out the dangers of smoking until someone smoked. But why would they smoke if it’s warning people not to that causes the desire?

If you were an actual therapist, certified by an awarding body and properly registered, you’d be aware of CPD, which is required of every member of the main governing body, meaning that even old therapists learn new tricks constantly. Unfortunately you’re not, so you aren’t, and instead you just keep ploughing on with the inane buck-passing to explain away why other won’t play ball with your nonsense.

Fallible wrote:It looks illogical to me.

It IS illogical! It's a cognitive "error" - a hologram, which appears to be substantive but which is in fact ittle more than smoke and mirrors.

No, your ‘explanation’ is illogical.