From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP, Smithsonian delirium
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:35:43 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
>First a series of posts about a sign at the Smithsonian which tells people
>to walk only on the black squares.  

I thought it was an interesting discussion.  I wondered why no one
suggested simply asking people why they responded the way they did.
Instead, in seemed that everyone had his own theory.  Now if we could
just teach rats to read the sign, we could do some real scientific
research.  ;-)

>Then an anecdote (what else?) from Lee
>Lady about Tim and Suzi's version of "Twister" that they do in airports
>by laying out pieces of paper in a circle, with each piece labelled with
>stuff like "current belief", "museum of old beliefs", and so on.
>I'm starting to see a trend.  Extrapolating to the Smithsonian of the Future:
>
>"20th Century psychologists believed that there was a spiritual relation
>between the foot print and the mind.  

Would you believe a physiological connection? (the toe bone connected
to the... :-)

>Artifacts discovered show that
>these early psychologists felt that by walking on annointed pieces of
>paper, sometimes referred to as "squares" (see pythagorean claims of psycho-
>geometrical implications for objects), people were able to mind meld and
>occasionally cure phobias in minutes.  Honest."

"Amazing, is that all they thought annointed paper was good for?"
>
>It is no wonder that psychology gets a bad name, 

Does psychology have a bad name?  I don't claim to do psychology, so
don't blame me.

>when these pseudoscientists

I don't claim to be a pseudoscientist, or a scientist either.

>claim to prove something,

I don't claim to prove anything, I just talk about possibilities, and
personal experience.

>then dismiss honest inquiry as "just your view
>of science."  

I glad you've made this honest inquiry.  I think that it's an essential
part of science.  But I don't recall seeing that remark here, did it
come from somewhere else in your experience?

I understand the definition of science.  I just think that it is too
limiting when applied to human beings.  After all, we haven't even
really learned to understand rats yet, have we?  :-)

>Too bad they don't have a quick cure for charlatanism.

I couldn't agree more.  In NLP, in psychology, in politics, in ...

>Can we return to science.psychology (get it? science as applied to
>psychology; not heresay.psychology)?

As I understand it, psychology has staked a claim as being the science
of understanding human beings.  I'm interested in the topic (some of my
best friends are humans), and that's why I follow these discussions.  I
try to contribute from my own experience.  And...

One of the most important attributes of science is its commitment to
open-mindedness, to the exploration of possibilities, and to the
attempt to explain the unexplained.  Most of what is considered science
today, was once just heresay, or heresy.

P.S. I hope you don't mind my little jokes about the rats.  I know that
psychologists don't like to be stereotyped any more that NLPers do.

Dave