David Eagleman suggests an idea in his book Incognito that sounds like NLP redux: "mere exposure to an idea is enough to boost its believability upon later contact." NLP proponents would heartily agree with Eagleman.
Say it over and over and over and over, and hey presto! you've reprogrammed reality.
Say it ain't so, you say?
Well, Bandler and Grinder's hippy-happy NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) has been debunked as pseudo-science by the scientific community. NLP doesn't match up with empirical data, according to the real scientists.
They--the real scientists--have said it so often that they've come to believe that what they've been saying is true. it is reality.
Of course, this is the scientific community that's recently found another one of its cherished realities in somewhat of a predicament. Some of the guys who make a living out of telescope gazing mapped out an astounding fact: an insanely large LQG (Large Quasar Group) in the universe. It's a galaxy cluster so big that it's bigger than the universe it's spiraling in. Sort of.
The point being, the newly discovered LQG is so big that it refutes Enstein's Cosmological principle. But wait, shouldn't this reduce the Cosmological Principle to the status of pseudo-science?
Professor: Let me begin my introductory lectures on peculiarities of peudso-science with a case study of Einstein's Cosmological Principle and also Neuro-Linguistic Programming. If you believed it, let me tell you: Einstein's cosmological principle is just so much NLP.
As Eagleman reminds us, "you're likely to believe that a statement is true if you have heard it before--whether or not it is actually true."
And haven't we all believed in the statement E=MC2, smirks the professor.
But that's not the worst possible mantra one might repeat over and over and over and over to create a truth that appears self-evident.
No, there's much worse. There are Religious edicts. There are political slogans.
change we can believe in change we can believe in change we can believe in change we can
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife thou shalt not covet
Repetition leads to belief leads to truth value. It's so ridiculously easy to program the human mind!
Only it isn't. There is always resistance. And that's the intriguing part. You can repeat your slogan and edict all you want, but I'm still not going to believe in any change to my coveting my neighbor's wife. Or his ox or his ass. (Exodus 20:17)
It's not just me coveting my neighbor's wife. Be honest, you're probably up to your ears in coveting if not oxes then definitely asses!
The point being, saying IT IS SO does NOT make it so for everyone concerned.
Let's take an outlandishly imaginary situation: a group of people being bombarded with the extremist messages by fanatics that call themselves the Caliban, in honor of their visionary bard Shakes-hammad. Their message is repeated over and over and over again--people the world with Calibans, people the world with Calibans, people the world with
The problem is, even on the little strip of reality that is the Caliban stronghold, there are those who won't or don't get converted to Calibanism. They resist. They refuse to believe the Caliban to be anything other than the purveyor of lies, of misrepresentation, of that which isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.
In such a case, couldn't we say the opposite of what Eagleman asserts: that you're more likely to believe a statement is false if you've heard it before, whether or not it is actually false?
It would seem reasonable to propose, then, that some brains are wired with "this must be true" circuits while others are wired with "this must be false."
To see whether you agree of disagree with that last statement, I want to you repeat it over and over and over and over...
Say it over and over and over and over, and hey presto! you've reprogrammed reality.
Say it ain't so, you say?
Well, Bandler and Grinder's hippy-happy NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) has been debunked as pseudo-science by the scientific community. NLP doesn't match up with empirical data, according to the real scientists.
They--the real scientists--have said it so often that they've come to believe that what they've been saying is true. it is reality.
Of course, this is the scientific community that's recently found another one of its cherished realities in somewhat of a predicament. Some of the guys who make a living out of telescope gazing mapped out an astounding fact: an insanely large LQG (Large Quasar Group) in the universe. It's a galaxy cluster so big that it's bigger than the universe it's spiraling in. Sort of.
The point being, the newly discovered LQG is so big that it refutes Enstein's Cosmological principle. But wait, shouldn't this reduce the Cosmological Principle to the status of pseudo-science?
Professor: Let me begin my introductory lectures on peculiarities of peudso-science with a case study of Einstein's Cosmological Principle and also Neuro-Linguistic Programming. If you believed it, let me tell you: Einstein's cosmological principle is just so much NLP.
As Eagleman reminds us, "you're likely to believe that a statement is true if you have heard it before--whether or not it is actually true."
And haven't we all believed in the statement E=MC2, smirks the professor.
But that's not the worst possible mantra one might repeat over and over and over and over to create a truth that appears self-evident.
No, there's much worse. There are Religious edicts. There are political slogans.
change we can believe in change we can believe in change we can believe in change we can
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife thou shalt not covet
Repetition leads to belief leads to truth value. It's so ridiculously easy to program the human mind!
Only it isn't. There is always resistance. And that's the intriguing part. You can repeat your slogan and edict all you want, but I'm still not going to believe in any change to my coveting my neighbor's wife. Or his ox or his ass. (Exodus 20:17)
It's not just me coveting my neighbor's wife. Be honest, you're probably up to your ears in coveting if not oxes then definitely asses!
The point being, saying IT IS SO does NOT make it so for everyone concerned.
Let's take an outlandishly imaginary situation: a group of people being bombarded with the extremist messages by fanatics that call themselves the Caliban, in honor of their visionary bard Shakes-hammad. Their message is repeated over and over and over again--people the world with Calibans, people the world with Calibans, people the world with
The problem is, even on the little strip of reality that is the Caliban stronghold, there are those who won't or don't get converted to Calibanism. They resist. They refuse to believe the Caliban to be anything other than the purveyor of lies, of misrepresentation, of that which isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.
In such a case, couldn't we say the opposite of what Eagleman asserts: that you're more likely to believe a statement is false if you've heard it before, whether or not it is actually false?
It would seem reasonable to propose, then, that some brains are wired with "this must be true" circuits while others are wired with "this must be false."
To see whether you agree of disagree with that last statement, I want to you repeat it over and over and over and over...
RSS Feed
