This a great forum for researching human nature.

[woof!]

EE, if you're taking a college course in psychology and you're enduring a professor who's still stuck in Freud, you have my sympathy.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

EE, your denials regarding psychology look suspiciously like certain denials made by proponents of LRLs. Science can be applied to the study of human behavior, both current and historical, just as surely as it can be applied to the study of dowsing. This whole forum is a great big study in human psychology. Based on your posts, you're not only a willing participant in this study, you're actually interested in it!

One of the wonderful characteristics that separates science from politics or religion is its self-correcting nature. Mistakes have been made in psychology? Heck, no Big Deal for science, where mistakes and wrong answers become part of the body of knowledge, along with the successes. We learn from both, and that's the Ultimate Goal. Religion and politics can't claim this; in fact, both attempt to stifle self-correction until, like tectonic plates, there's a sudden "attitude adjustment."

Psychology has had a rough road historically because much of what was observed (behavior) needed advanced knowledge of chemistry and biology to explain and understand. Call it the "alchemy" stage of psychology. We're probably finally to the point where the puzzle is starting to make sense. That's why I said, psychology is one branch of science that still has heaping gobs of undiscovered territory; it's really just getting started.

"Psychology ain't science" is no more valid than "science can't be applied to LRLs." If you don't like psychology, then this forum is probably the Wrong Place to be.

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

That's funny, because I almost made a point of the similarity of woof!'s hoo-doo mockery of science, and the LRL manufacturers'. (I didn't say LRL "proponents" there, because I strongly suspect that the few most adamant ones, and the manufacturers, are one and the same.)

For example, I've already pointed out to both, that they are using conjectures as though they are actual scientific theories, and theories as though they are scientifically proven facts.

In my book, that's not true science. Is it in yours?

 

[EE THr]

Judy---

If you think that those points that I made, which you quoted, are not valid, then you should say so, and state exactly why. Otherwise your post makes no sense.

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm not denying psychology, as it is supposed to be, but rather I'm saying that modern psychology has been diverted away from the scientific method.

This is inferred in one of my posts, when I mentioned that Germans took it over, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

Does that make better sense, as to what my position on "psychology" is, now?

 

[aarthrj3811]

It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[EE THr]

Art---

I think it may be more of a problem of trust. I have found that honest people tend to trust others, especially in certain circumstances.

Parents tell their kids that it's good to go to school. Kids tend to believe adults. So they go to school, and there the adult teachers tell them things, like Columbus discovered America, and the U.S. Civil War was about abolishing slavery. Of course, many people find out later that these things are not true.

Then the kids go to college. They are told, "OK, now we're going to tell you the real story. And the kids now believe that.

Only the entire educational system is controlled by politics.

So when, in Psychology class, the kids are told that all these dead guys opinions are fact, they just believe that. So they memorize all this stuff, and all the animal tests, and after years of studying those things, and "believing" in it, they are reluctant to just give it up for reality. The educations system worked. But who did it work for?

Instead of teaching kids how to think, they just teach them how to memorize. This is where the reference to people acting like robots comes from. You know when you come across someone like this, because they don't address certain significant questions, but instead spew out their memorized spiel. Real Psychology would refer to this as "not able to relate to reality." And I don't mean that as a snarky insult, either. They just don't get it, that a reply is generally meant "reply to the question asked," rather than just ignore the question, and take up a new tack. Obviously, any kind of coherent discussion with people like this is impossible.





And it's not necessarily the person's fault, entirely.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE THr~

Instead of teaching kids how to think, they just teach them how to memorize. This is where the reference to people acting like robots comes from. You know when you come across someone like this, because they don't address certain significant questions, but instead spew out their memorized spiel. Real Psychology would refer to this as "not able to relate to reality." And I don't mean that as a snarky insult, either. They just don't get it, that a reply is generally meant "reply to the question asked," rather than just ignore the question, and take up a new tack. Obviously, any kind of coherent discussion with people like this is impossible.

We finally have something that we agree on


I would like to tell every one that I have no connections to Ranger Tell..I am just a satisfied customer. I struggled at first with this device but they were just an E-mail away with help. Every year I get the new updated information and choice and pick the parts that I like. Antony knows that they will never see any more dollars from me so why do keep helping me ?....Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks to the skeptics for this great thread..It is clearly a good thread for learning how the skeptics think and how much knowledge they have about treasure hunting..Art

 

[EE THr]

Got a question for you, Art.

Why so much white space under your previous post?

How did that happen?

 

[pronghorn]

Would I be out of line if I requested a human nature
research study on the following hypothetical situation?

A poster on a forum, let's call him Tart, posts
vigorously, sometimes as many as 60 posts a day.
A substantial percentage of Tart's posts mention the
name of a product, let's call this product Danger-smell.
The product is unproven in the eye's of 99.9999%
of the population, regardless, Tart swears by it.
The owner of Danger-smell gives Tart direction and free
stuff regularly, Tart believes this happens because
Danger-smell's owner is a generous person who truly
loves helping people.

Are some people that easily manipulated?
As in, is Tart an unsuspecting pawn, giving
Danger-smell a substantial amount of free advertising?

Are some people so low as to take advantage of others?
As in, is Danger-smell taking advantage of Tart?

Are these ligitimate questions?
Or, should I seek help as Tart and the Tartetts suggest?

 

[pronghorn]

You too can leave long voids beneath your post if you so desire.
Just hit the enter key for a long period of time before you hit
the post button.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good evening my friends; there have been some tips and bits of extremely interesting data on Psychology.

Many are debating and questioning "if it were even a science", since, in many cases it, like dowsing, finds that many of it's findings, both past and present, are different in each cycle, even with the same subject, same conditions, etc..

However, even if it does not follow, or is subject to Sciences golden rule of fixed repeatability, it still 'IS' a definite science.

I will be among the first in here to say that "IT 'IS' A TRUE SCIENCE, but, like dowsing, it deals with factors in a constantly changing base. 'The human factor', which is changing minute by minute as the enormous inflow of new information is constantly modifying it's behavior and thought..

A test right now, and then again a few hours later after reading, experiencing, and listening to new information will always have different results, even though the base may appear to be the same.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

pronghorn---

I think your questions are not only legitimate, but actually answer themselves.

As for the question, "What constitutes advertising?" I can only say that businesses pay for certain kinds of advertising, by the "number of exposures."

One example of this would be banners. I'm not talking about "click-throughs," now. Just exposures. So it would be a banner on a page, and every time the page is visited, that's one exposure.

Probably a smart operator could get paid for every time he mentioned the name Danger-smell on a forum. Possibly multiplied by the number of Views which show on the contents page, even. So if a guy made a really provocative topic title, then got to arguing a lot on that thread, and created lots of drama like a scripted reality show, or even unbelievable mindless babbling, I think it's possible that he could really clean up by attracting many viewers.

He would have to be careful and not be too obvious.

I think somebody has over done it, however!





P.S. Yeah, I know how the line feed works. I just wanted to hear his explanation for why he did it. Notice the result is that when his post is the last one on the page, it scrolls all other posts up, off the screen, to put full attention (or should I say "exposure"?) on his post? Very interesting effect, no?

 

[woof!]

Responding to Real's post:

All of life, for humans and turnips alike, is the testing of hypothesis. The recent non-biological parasite called "ideology" (some prefer terms like "cultural conditioning" and/or "memes") is also the testing of hypothesis. Life is the scientific method. The so-called "scientific method" they taught in junior high school is just a method for reducing the amount of variation resulting in selection, according to the principle of reproduction with variation and selection. In biology this is called "speciation".

Biological clones represent the end of variation in hypothesis. They have the advantage of being able to dispense with the mechanisms and fallout resulting from variation, but when the selection rules change the clone is dead meat because it has forfeited its ability offer variants which can be selected. That is why there is so little clonal propagation in nature. Newton's Laws stood the test of time for a while, but at relativistic speeds they got deselected. The clone still works where the rules under which it was cloned haven't changed.

Some people think that "science" is something that was on their professor's bookshelf ten years ago, a "thing" which was produced and cast in concrete, something they were taught as a list of factoids. And they have no awareness of science beyond that. It's like a stone statue which one might worship. On the other hand, life can be lived consciously as the scientific method and practice, in a Universe where the only guarantee is that it selects by its rules and not by ours.

To diverge just slightly (and back to Real's theme): several years ago I was asked what I regarded as the biggest consumer product engineering challenge. Y'all know how verbose I am, but that question admitted of only one quick answer, there were no runnerups. "Psychology". One word. Compared to psychology, electronics is easy!

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

I think I pretty much understand what you said.

But there appears to be a problem with definitions. And definitions determin whether or not people are speaking the same language. Unless the definition of terms is known and agreed upon, nothing but confusion can result in any attempt at conversation.

Science and reality are not necessarily exactly aligned.

If something is real, it's reality. If it exists, it's reality. If a person water witches, digs, and has a well, it's reality. Reality is fine.

Science, on the other hand, has certain defined parameters of itself. I posted a link to the Scientific Method. It is what it is. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that. It's strictly defined.

It's as simple as that. Keep it simple, and it's not a problem.

If somebody says that a bird will fly into a certain tree, at a certain time, and it does---then that's reality. But if he claims that he can do it ten times in a row, but he can only do it once, then it's not a science. It's a reality that he did it. And maybe he can do it again. But a science? No.

I have no reason to doubt that dowsers have been successful. And with a high percentage of success, too. There is no scientific reason that they should be successful. But there is also none that they shouldn't. Science has not gone there.

Some scientists have tested certain types of psychic phenomenon, and shown that they do exist at higher than random percentages, sometimes much higher. But they can't explain it, or reproduce it in everybody. It can be studied scientifically, but it is not yet a science.

Automotive engineering is a science. Dowsing in not. But that does not mean that dowsing is not real.

Does that make sense? Can you accept the different definitions?

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

For the part about psychology.

By definition, something is either scientific, or it is not.

They can make all the profound assumptions they want, that's fine with me.

They can state all the opinions about the human psyche that they want, that's fine with me.

But when they start calling assumptions and opinions "fact," I'm sorry, but that's just not science. Unless maybe the person is speaking a different language or something.


To try to say that science is "everything," just eliminates the definition, and brings things back to an impossible state for communications, where nothing is defined, and therefore nobody can know what is being said. That doesn't work.

To try to change any definition, on the fly, as it suits someone, or some group, is nothing more than an attempt to intentionally confuse.

So I recommend that people stick to reality, and to agreed upon definitions, and there will be much better results in communication, and fewer misunderstandings and arguments.

 

[woof!]

EE, some people regard science as something one does. So you're right, there may be two different languages being spoken here.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

OK.

 

[woof!]

EE, automotive engineering is as you say, a science, even though the knowledge base they work with is imperfect and even though they err in applying that knowledge base. Automotive engineers are (we hope!) practitioners of science, and they screw up. One of the most important aspects of automotive engineering is psychology, because if the practitioner of the craft screws that up too badly, either you don't buy the car, or wish you hadn't. It's the hardest thing to get right.

Dowsing is a craft which although it is certainly not as advanced in knowledge as automotive engineering is (how's that for an understatement?), it can be approached the same way -- scientifically. As has often been commented on, certain aspects of human nature provide motive for doing it in a nonscientific manner, a behavior sometimes referred to humorously as "the book of alabis". The underlying aspect of human nature which produces that behavior is the desire to be in control of things you're not actually in control of. So rather than allowing the Universe declare what the result was, the human ego takes over the job. A failed dowse is thus magically transformed into a good dowse even though the result was worthless.

The same behavior is seen in everyday life, it's certainly not limited to dowsing. I could name a metal detector product which was an absolute failure in the market-- nobody wanted it, and for good reason! The engineer was adamant that it was a great design, and that it was the customers who were all wrong. A failed exercise in engineering was thus magically transformed into a good product even though the product was worthless.

--Toto