Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[WWGD]

Just a broad overview, perhaps?

Doesn't have to be a broad, could be a man too *. But good point, had not thought about it like that.

* Broad is a slang term for a woman in parts of the U.S, not sure if also in the U.K.

 

[Ibix]

Thanks to Hollywood (Bogart style hardboiled detectives in this case), pretty much everyone in the entire world is familiar with many dialects of US slang...

 

[jim hardy]

Yeah for the new capitalism. A product doesn't have to actually work well or even work at all. It just need to be cheap enough that returning it is more trouble than just throwing it away.

There's a lot written about our "Throwaway Society"
and my feelings are mixed
part of me says "Waste not want not"
and another part says "sure it's cheap but everybody can afford one" .

Those with an inclination might get interested enough to dig in and learn a great deal about something seemingly ordinary which i suppose enriches their life. What if SiliconWaffle got interested in high performance loudspeaker enclosures ? It's a booming hobby.

I have learned to fix stuff
and that enables one to have fine things he couldn't otherwise afford
when somebody else throws them away.
This neat old Czechoslovakian "Copy of Jacobus Stainer" needed strings, a bridge , the back glued back in place and sound post reset . Seven bucks in the thrift shop.
A friend showed me how...
twenty more bucks and a couple afternoons later

Now i need a bow and a lesson.

old jim

 

[rbelli1]

sure it's cheap but everybody can afford one

In the case of Silicon Waffle's speakers he is buying something that is cheap enough that if it is entirely worthless as a product it will just go to the landfill unused. That is totally different from providing everyone the opportunity to own otherwise unattainable items. Those speakers are designed to work once. The fact that they often work longer is irrelevant to the manufacturer. If they could shave a few cents off the cost of manufacturer and make them certainly only work once they would. I have stopped buying that kind of junk because they always fail so soon and the warranty replacement cost will be more than getting a new one (that will break just as quickly). [/rant]

Then you have something like this:
http://www.myce.com/news/fake-and-counterfeit-usb-flash-drives-spreading-on-amazon-72165/

It is engineered specifically to not work but trick one into purchasing it. Seems more honest in an ironic sort of way.

BoB

 

[jim hardy]

I've opened up some plain awful sounding cheap computer speakers
the electronics is decent and would last a long time
but the speaker element itself way too small to make decent sound with the power available.

So you're right
most of them do go straight to landfill when user's sophistication improves and he starts paying attention to sound quality
or a flimsy wire breaks..

I fundamentally agree with your rant, though,
but at the other end of the cost continuum.
How many people remain in perpetual debt to automobile loans?
When cars got so expensive they had to come up with seven year financing
they had to be built to last ten years so a second owner could get a loan.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150729/RETAIL/150729861/average-age-of-u.s.-fleet-hits-record-11.5-years-ihs-says][/PLAIN] The average age of light vehicles on the road in the U.S. reached a new all-time high of 11.5 years at the end of 2014,

I drive $2000 cars because they last me half as long as $30,000 cars.

credit: http://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/924

old jim

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yeah for the new capitalism. A product doesn't have to actually work well or even work at all. It just need to be cheap enough that returning it is more trouble than just throwing it away.

It's a brilliant strategy, really, and I think the originators of it should be rewarded with some jail time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have learned to fix stuff
and that enables one to have fine things he couldn't otherwise afford
when somebody else throws them away.

As a matter of fact, though, aren't you old enough to have been raised in the time when repair was the norm rather than the exception? High schools used to have all kinds of shop courses back in the day: machine shop, wood shop, auto shop. People darned socks, and patched clothes. They fixed broken furniture. When your shoe soles wore through, you took them to a cobbler to be re-soled. The concept of disposable goods is actually pretty recent. Everything used to be considered repairable.

 

[JorisL]

As a matter of fact, though, aren't you old enough to have been raised in the time when repair was the norm rather than the exception? High schools used to have all kinds of shop courses back in the day: machine shop, wood shop, auto shop. People darned socks, and patched clothes. They fixed broken furniture. When your shoe soles wore through, you took them to a cobbler to be re-soled. The concept of disposable goods is actually pretty recent. Everything used to be considered repairable.

It is coming back in a limited sense. My uncle recently started a shoemaker business.
And if I'm not mistaken people take clothes to a tailor to repair them more often as well (over here at least).

In fact I should bring him another pair of shoes with loose stitching and cracked leather.
You can invest once in a decent pair and use them for years to come if you treat them well (didn't with that pair).

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is coming back in a limited sense. My uncle recently started a shoemaker business.
And if I'm not mistaken people take clothes to a tailor to repair them more often as well (over here at least).

In fact I should bring him another pair of shoes with loose stitching and cracked leather.
You can invest once in a decent pair and use them for years to come if you treat them well (didn't with that pair).

Good to hear. However, I'm betting your uncle's clients are probably well off people whose shoes are very expensive to begin with. Back in the day, just about all shoes were resoled and reheeled, cheaper ones included.

 

[WWGD]

Good to hear. However, I'm betting your uncle's clients are probably well off people whose shoes are very expensive to begin with. Back in the day, just about all shoes were resoled and reheeled, cheaper ones included.

Sometimes it is a matter of basic cost. My $250 PC conked out a while back, after two years of use. Repair estimates were $100-$150. No point in repairing, I can get a better product ( tehcnological improvements over 2 years) for another $200-$250. .With technology, production costs have sunk, making the choice of replacing a product version 1.0 with a version 3.0 of the same product a reasonable idea/strategy Plus, technology changes so quickly that it may be hard to update one's repair skills. Then there is, of course, planned obsolescence too.

 

[WWGD]

Thanks to Hollywood (Bogart style hardboiled detectives in this case), pretty much everyone in the entire world is familiar with many dialects of US slang...

Massive marketing machinery puts out a lot of crap, unfortunately.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sometimes it is a matter of basic cost. My $250 PC conked out a while back, after two years of use. Repair estimates were $100-$150. No point in repairing, I can get a better product ( tehcnological improvements over 2 years) for another $200-$250. .With technology, production costs have sunk, making the choice of replacing a product version 1.0 with a version 3.0 of the same product a reasonable idea/strategy Plus, technology changes so quickly that it may be hard to update one's repair skills. Then there is, of course, planned obsolescence too.

Yes, it's a whole different paradigm now: produce a product that is so cheap, and which changes so quickly, that when it fails (according to design) it will be in your best interest to buy a whole new one and throw the old one away, as per Jim's cartoon. Everything is disposable now in order that manufacturers have a constant large income. But, as BoB pointed out, now they're experimenting with selling products so cheaply made they don't work at all, but they're too inexpensive to bother returning and complaining about.

 

[WWGD]

Interesting to read about study on social anxiety. Seems problem stemmed from (anxious) people focusing on potentially problematic outcomes, to the extent that they scared themselves from trying. Therapy consisted in training them to shift focus from problematic outcomes to more neutral ones: they were repeatedly shown a series of pictures in which colors flashed next to neutral stimuli (neutral facial expressions), to which they were trained to react and thus pay attention, which made them shift their (automatic ) attention away from the potential pitfalls.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting to read about study on social anxiety. Seems problem stemmed from (anxious) people focusing on potentially problematic outcomes, to the extent that they scared themselves from trying. Therapy consisted in training them to shift focus from problematic outcomes to more neutral ones: they were repeatedly shown a series of pictures in which colors flashed next to neutral stimuli (neutral facial expressions), to which they were trained to react and thus pay attention, which made them shift their (automatic ) attention away from the potential pitfalls.

That sounds very much like Cognitive Therapy, whose mechanism consists of shifting from distorted thinking to realistic thinking. From, "If I try this, something bad will surely result!," to, "If I try this, most likely nothing particularly good or bad will happen."

 

[WWGD]

That sounds very much like Cognitive Therapy, whose mechanism consists of shifting from distorted thinking to realistic thinking. From, "If I try this, something bad will surely result!," to, "If I try this, most likely nothing particularly good or bad will happen."

But what seems strange to me is that a problem that at first sight seems intractable can be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way. No need for years of therapy, for accounts of one's childhood, etc., just 4-5 therapy sessions seems to do it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But what seems strange to me is that a problem that at first sight seems intractable can be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way. No need for years of therapy, for accounts of one's childhood, etc., just 4-5 therapy sessions seems to do it.

I guess what seems strange to me is that you haven't heard that all those dig-into-your-past schools of therapy died at least 30 years ago. It's all pretty much dig-into-your-present now. In the sense that, it's what's going through your mind in the present that's bothering you. Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

... Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.

Exactly!

 

[WWGD]

I guess what seems strange to me is that you haven't heard that all those dig-into-your-past schools of therapy died at least 30 years ago. It's all pretty much dig-into-your-present now. In the sense that, it's what's going through your mind in the present that's bothering you. Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.

Simple, my exposure to literature on therapy is a casual one; I have not delved much into it. This case I was referring to comes from a book on attention from a cognitive, not therapeutic perspective. My exposure to therapy itself is also casual, though I may be throwing a softball to many who know me by saying it.

 

[WWGD]

I guess I should have taken the ski mask of before going into the bank. But it was too cold.
Still, it was the bank people who decided to give me the money, I did not ask for it, so it only
seems fair that I get to keep it.

 

[WWGD]

Simple, my exposure to literature on therapy is a casual one; I have not delved much into it. This case I was referring to comes from a book on attention from a cognitive, not therapeutic perspective. My exposure to therapy itself is also casual, though I may be throwing a softball to many who know me by saying it.

Another interesting idea about therapy I casually picked up ( by a book author being interviewed in CSpan's BookTV) is the claim that one can overcome a difficult issue by "walking it away". One must not be carrying anything that impedes the natural movement. Then, the claim is, that when one thinks about the issue during the walk, the alternating movement of the left and right arms will allow the issue to be processed by both the right- and left- sides of the brain. True that this left- , right- brain is somewhat simplified, but there may be something to it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Another interesting idea about therapy I casually picked up ( by a book author being interviewed in CSpan's BookTV) is the claim that one can overcome a difficult issue by "walking it away". One must not be carrying anything that impedes the natural movement. Then, the claim is, that when one thinks about the issue during the walk, the alternating movement of the left and right arms will allow the issue to be processed by both the right- and left- sides of the brain. True that this left- , right- brain is somewhat simplified, but there may be something to it.

This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.

 

[WWGD]

This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.

I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent (Thom Hartmann) is an NLP practitioner. He was interviewed in CCSpan, which usually invites reasonable people (no Ancient Aliens garbage, etc.) . This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent is an NLP practitioner (Thom Hartmann). This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.

NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)

 

[WWGD]

NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)

But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker. EDIT: I mean, if, say 3-4 people I considered to be capable and reasonable dismissed it, I would be more likely to accept it, but just one person's disagreemnt (a person I know nothing about) or dismissal is not enough for me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker.

Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.

 

[WWGD]

Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.

From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these. Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.

 

[zoobyshoe]

From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these.

This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.

Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.

I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.

 

[WWGD]

This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.

I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.

So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.

I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:

In 1972 (during Grinder's stint at UCSC) Richard Bandler, an undergraduate student of psychology, approached him for assistance in specific aspects of modelingGestalt therapy. Bandler, along with good friend Frank Pucelik, had spent much time recording and editing recordings of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy) and had learned Gestalt therapy implicitly during intense group sessions. After some time, Grinder was invited to participate in group discussions. Although at first Grinder sat quietly, he eventually approached Bandler and Pucelik with some observations and questions. Grinder left a lasting impression on Pucelik and was later dubbed 'the real genius'.[12] Bandler and Pucelik invited Grinder to team-up eventually creating a very close group. Although Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik were the main driving force, there were several other students at the university who contributed ‘a hell of a lot’ according to Pucelik.[12] In the end, hours of unpaid research significantly aided the formation of Meta - modern day NLP.

From there Grinder and Bandler modeled the various cognitive behavioral patterns of therapists such as Perls, a leading figure in family therapy Virginia Satir and later the leading figure in hypnosis in psychiatry Milton Erickson. As a result, The Structure of Magic Volumes I & II (1975, 1976), Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II (1975, 1977) and Changing With Families (1976) were published. This work formed the basis of the methodology that became the foundation of neuro-linguistic programming.

NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:

In an earlier review of the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the present author (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1984-21020-001 ) concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. In their comment on that review, E. L. Einspruch and B. D. Forman (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1986-08199-001 ) agreed with this conclusion but suggested that it was due to the presence of methodological errors in the research on NLP to date and that the efficacy of NLP was open to debate. In the present article, it is contended that those suggestions were based on misconceptions regarding the factors that limit the methodological worth of research. Several of the detailed criticisms from that review are refuted, and data from 7 recent studies that further demonstrate that research data do not support either the basic tenets of NLP or their application in counseling situations are presented. Implications for the use of NLP in counseling research or clinical practice are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:

This is only a very small sampling of current research studies that support various aspects of NLP practice and methodology, and more appear each week. There is a lot of research that supports NLP principles, but it is not identified as such. If all these studies were collected into a review article, it would provide quite impressive support. Meanwhile, a few of us continue to explore the boundaries of what we already know and can do.

And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.

 

[WWGD]

I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:

NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:
The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:

And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.

My battery was dying and I could not surf well; I will look it up latter. Going through the training alone can at best show that the training is done poorly, and that it may have become over -commercialized. When you say that one member has training, have you looked up the background of all the authors? Sorry, I need to be out for now, I cannot address points for a while.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Going through the training alone can at best show that the training is done poorly, and that it may have become over -commercialized.

But that would be indicative of the fact the whole training course was invented as a product, with the intention of earning money, as opposed to being a school of psychology intended to help people. NLP basically offers psychological superpowers to anyone who takes the course, and that is it's appeal. It's not science, but something in the same category as Tony Robbins and the other "motivational speakers." Each of those people has a 'grab-bag' of, probably sound, psychological tools to get people to try, but really the point is for Tony Robbins to earn a good living.

When you say that one member has training, have you looked up the background of all the authors?

I did a quick, (and apparently sloppy) wiki read on the main two. From previous reading, though, I know it's essentially Milton Erickson based. Meaning, they did not study neuroscience and also linguistics, and then perceive a pattern to be elaborated on. They studied Erickson, and then glued together some words (neuro + linguistics) to make his seat-of-the-pants flying seem like it was based in science.

But your original point was not that they were qualified to say how scientific Erickson was. Rather, you were casting Derren Brown as unqualified to debunk NLP. That is something like casting Houdini as unqualified to debunk the seance because he had no theological training, hence no proper grasp of the Spirit Realm. Derren Brown's qualifications are, that he, himself, is a professional demonstrator of "psychological superpowers." As a hypnotist/magician/manipulator-by-psychology, he knows all the tricks when he sees them. As did Houdini.

 

[WWGD]

But that would be indicative of the fact the whole training course was invented as a product, with the intention of earning money, as opposed to being a school of psychology intended to help people. NLP basically offers psychological superpowers to anyone who takes the course, and that is it's appeal. It's not science, but something in the same category as Tony Robbins and the other "motivational speakers." Each of those people has a 'grab-bag' of, probably sound, psychological tools to get people to try, but really the point is for Tony Robbins to earn a good living.I did a quick, (and apparently sloppy) wiki read on the main two. From previous reading, though, I know it's essentially Milton Erickson based. Meaning, they did not study neuroscience and also linguistics, and then perceive a pattern to be elaborated on. They studied Erickson, and then glued together some words (neuro + linguistics) to make his seat-of-the-pants flying seem like it was based in science.

But your original point was not that they were qualified to say how scientific Erickson was. Rather, you were casting Derren Brown as unqualified to debunk NLP. That is something like casting Houdini as unqualified to debunk the seance because he had no theological training, hence no proper grasp of the Spirit Realm. Derren Brown's qualifications are, that he, himself, is a professional demonstrator of "psychological superpowers." As a hypnotist/magician/manipulator-by-psychology, he knows all the tricks when he sees them. As did Houdini.

Derren Brown may have at best proven that the course he took was taught by a scammer. One person, one course taken. T Besides, there is a difference IMO between the theory, the implementation and the " implementers" . A poorly taught class in, e.g., French Cuisine does not show that French Cuisine is lousy. I don't know how you can so casually IMO conclude that the whole thing was put together in such a way to make it seem like it is based in science; I have read some of the texts put out by Bandler, Dilts, etc. , and they do make specific scientific claims (by which I mean scientifically-testable statements, whether valid or not), which are based on assessments of neurological bases for certain types of behaviors, and describing behavior by sequences of neurological reactions. This may not hold up scientifically, i.e. , may not be reproducible, but it is laid out in such a way as to be testable by science.
I suspect that some on the business side of operations decided to package the whole deal in an oversimplified way to the general public, describing the end product without explaining how/why it works, whether the real thing does or does not work. The business end often vulgarizes and frankly some times flat out cheats in order to increase sales. You cannot blame that on a faulty theory underlying NLP.

EDIT: NLP makes specific claims. I don't have the training to test the accuracy of the claims but I do think I have enough training to determine that the claims made are testable.

EDIT2 : I think we are at a stalemate and I suggest we leave it here, I don't see how we can really move forward.

 

[lisab]

I can lose myself looking at maps.

 

[WWGD]

I was asked to remove my ski mask while at B&N. This is a sub-ground level store, with mechanical stairs. Does anyone really think I am going to stick up a store with around 100 customers in the cafe, then go up two flights of mechanical stairs (with people in the stairs) to leave the store? On top of that, instead of regular security, they have an actual city cop patrolling (which is weird, since I don't know if he is acting in his capacity as a cop or as a security guard.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

EDIT2 : I think we are at a stalemate and I suggest we leave it here, I don't see how we can really move forward.

Let me have a last word: Derren Brown isn't the only NLP critic:
http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html