Standard Deflection (or Reflection) Techniques.

[edog743]

Backsider, I see you are still trying to stir the pot. At least you are consistent

[backsider]

Backsider, I see you are still trying to stir the pot. At least you are consistent
 No, Im not. But if EDCs post isnt a confusing potstirrer and you didnt see that, at least we can all smile about it. I also dont believe putting in ***** is suppose to be ok with you. Im so glad I didnt do that.

[edog743]

I am not sure what it is maybe I would not be alright with it  I can assume but that probably would not be prudent at this time.

[Frank Kneeland]

On an unrelated note I'm starting a new thread which is a re-post of something I put on LVA this month. It is VP related. The post will be entitled "Measuring Change". The reason it is VP related is because I have a nagging suspicion that people with strong VP related beliefs don't generally alter their basic views and in fact reject a great deal of VP advice because it includes information that challenges their core beliefs.My eventual goal is to adapt current VP teaching into a less changeling format, so that it can be more widely excepted and reach and help people outside the current envelope of AP.~FK

[New2vp]

On an unrelated note I'm starting a new thread which is a re-post of something I put on LVA this month. It is VP related. The post will be entitled "Measuring Change". The reason it is VP related is because I have a nagging suspicion that people with strong VP related beliefs don't generally alter their basic views and in fact reject a great deal of VP advice because it includes information that challenges their core beliefs.My eventual goal is to adapt current VP teaching into a less changeling format, so that it can be more widely excepted and reach and help people outside the current envelope of AP.~FKNice try in changing the subject, Frank, to a less volatile one.  How's that working out for you?  Everyone is in agreement and much more civil now, right?Although I'm interested in your study, I refrained from posting there because I didn't want to be associated with the melee that seemed certain to ensue after the first couple posts.  You didn't see this coming?? { A quick sidetrip:  Among the questions that I would have in a more serious environment:1.  How were the 85% numbers arrived at?  Was this from a study that you did personally or are you adapting it from work done by someone else?2.  How large was the sample size?3.  Were the obvious control variables accounted for?  Gender, Age, Education, Race, Nationality, perhaps even Math/Science aptitude.  Usually in studies such as these, there are side findings as to how the control variables affect the key dependent variables or if any are in fact neutral and have no effect.4.  If your stated conclusion is that 85% of the people will cling to the information that they are first presented with, how would changing the teaching format change that percentage?  What is it that the trainer can control since you likely cannot control whether or not you got to the person first?5.  How long is the time period between measurements?  If 15% of the people change their opinion each year, it says something very different than if 15% of the people change their opinion every 10 years.6.  How can you incorporate anecdotal data such as what is being gathered here in any meaningful way without that control information, especially in light that it is highly likely that a fair number of posters have agendas other than giving rigorously unbiased accounts? E.g., it may be a stretch in an instance or to characterize some of the rationale for changed opinions as NEW information, since the information referenced was present in the set of core beliefs all along.7.  Somewhere you state (I'm paraphrasing) that beliefs can change only when CORE beliefs change, which seems a bit tautological.  What is the difference between beliefs and CORE beliefs?  Is there some standard number or type of CORE beliefs?8.  When do you think you will have the study completed and will you share the results here? }If you are inclined to answer any of these, you might want to do this before you read what is below.  While my post thus far can be characterized as curiosity, what is below is more likely to be viewed as criticism, and therefore likely seen as unfair.  You may be too mad at me and wonder whether I am worthy of receiving answers.After all, if we are resistant to changing beliefs, we are also resistant to criticism of those beliefs, thoughts, writings, etc.Back on topic:I also refrained from adding to this thread for a couple days in addition to what Webman asked for just in case I was judged to be the main culprit in hostilities. Although I haven't been participating, at least one poster is projecting that I am one of the root causes.  And doing so by baseless charges, a technique listed in the initial post of this thread.I do want to issue a warning to all that the rest of this post is for mature audiences only.  I cannot be wholly responsible for hurt feelings if you are someone who can't take a joke.  And a lot of it isn't funny at all; there is underlying seriousness that some might regard as tense.  If either makes you feel uncomfortable, STOP READING NOW!  You have been warned.Frank, since (1) your thread seems to have become as contentious as this one, (2) you posted in both threads extensively, and (3) I only posted extensively in this one, statistics would say that you have a higher propensity for warmongering than I do!  Obviously, I am only teasing here.  It is clear that you mostly went overboard in trying to change the tone to one that was less combative.  It should be equally obvious by now who is least able to post about differing beliefs in a civil manner without starting a conflict, though I'm not certain yet that you agree with me.  And after all the trouble you went to.  It seems like only yesterday that you gave wise counsel:Then listen to what people are saying to you, and instead of trying to prove them wrong, or contradict them, try to figure out what you have done or said to illicit such thoughts and feelings, and work on expressing yourself differently in the future to avoid it.And your advisee so promisingly took it to heart:I certainly have learned something from that, thanks, and look forward to the future with renewed vigor and hope. <incendiary clause and emoticons removed> Whether that pledge was sincere or not, whatever effect you hoped to have had appears to have been quite ephemeral.  Oh well, you gave it a great try.  But this might have been predicted since you did also say, At the end of the day, the only person we can change for sure is ourselves.You had little or no hope of changing him from the beginning.  Frank, I hate to satirize your exchange because I know you gave it in a serious attempt to help; but I am also suggesting that your participation may be causing more harm than good based on previous "reflective" experiences.  In a recent post, you seem to moving from the role of psychologist/social worker to one of a defense attorney, accusing other posters of going overboard while turning a blind eye to the actions your "client" has taken almost from the very beginning in your thread by not adhering to the very decorum which you pleaded for in the initial post (You might recall that I outlined baiting in Standard Reflection Technique #2).  You are handicapped in your defense because much of the "jury" has preconceived notions based on previous incarnations of your client, which I cannot tell for sure whether or not you understand.  Additionally, your client is not lovable, so a jury, imperfect as its decision-making can be, may get the verdict about your client wrong even in a situation when he was correct._____________________________________________________________________________There is an accusation on the table that Backsider is "guilty" of accepting information which reinforces his current beliefs, and is disregarding or refuting information that contradicts them. I'm surprised shadow didn't also condemn him for eating, breathing and sleeping.Frank, I do expect a bit better from you in this discussion.  Nice straw man argument that you have tried to construct here--restate your competitor's argument in a way that it can be easily refuted.  Shadowman is not only pointing out that backsider's beliefs are incorrect, but also that his methods and rhetoric are inappropriately hostile,  have been seen here before, and have a lot more to do with the BS-master having a personal vendetta against shadowman than with honest differences of opinion.You are right Frank.  Beliefs of others are difficult to change sometimes, even if faced with evidence that would be sufficient to sway most.  Not just backsider's beliefs, not just shadowman's, and not just mine._____________________________________________________________________________I will now present excerpts from 3 separate posts.  The first two were from three months ago, in consecutive postings.  The 3rd is more recent:Seeing that different people come up with radically different conclusions subjects like this, starting from the same evidence,at first was mind-boggling to me.  Of course, I think my conclusions (which I won't state here) are obvious from using clear logic and an open mind.  Thus, I then expected other fair-minded people to come up with the same conclusions with the implication being that others who come up with different conclusions are either illogical, not fair-minded, or even worse, just plain dishonest.I've since come up with the thesis that the reason many people come up with different conclusions is that they bring a different set of beliefs to the table that cause them to view and evaluate the evidence differently.  Those beliefs have a great effect on those conclusions.  Thus, I wonder if threads like this actually change significantly many people's viewpoints.I wonder how many independents who hadn't made up their mind yet prior to this thread are swayed one way or another.  I'll hazard a guess that there are very few.I was a little on the border when i joined. i had studied advantage play... I went to a Dancer class What i, as an independent, found from all this is I'm never going to do anything more than be a basic for-fun player who knows cards, understands math pretty good, i know how to take advantage of promotions and the higher pay tablesIm an admitedly bad player who would love to have an ambition to learn to be better...Ive got nothing to do with paytablesThe thoughts of Poster A are highly correlated with Frank's belief thread.  It could serve both as (1) an introduction to the thread since it sets up the premise and (2) a response since it talks about a changed opinion (in fact, it is quite close to what damule expressed earlier in the thread).Poster B has professed devoting more time than average to obtaining a wide understanding of video poker strategy, a more than adequate knowledge of cards and math, and the ability to understand pay schedules and promotions.  Poster C doesn't seem to understand pay schedules or have any special knowledge.As I hope most of you have guessed by know, Poster B and C are posting under the same screen name.  Though the posts may, on the surface, seem contradictory, this is par for the course when the poster is more concerned with persuading an audience to one's point of view rather than with presenting facts accurately.  I will leave it others to determine if Poster B's claim of not making up his mind on these issues until after he joined the forum a couple months ago is plausible.And I'm guilty of being Poster A.  Frank, you participated in this thread but for some reason didn't comment there about this fascinating subject of how difficult it is to change beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary...until bringing it up in your new thread a couple days ago._____________________________________________________________________________So here's our big chance: If we know that our minds tend to dismiss contradictory evidence and accept only that which reinforces our current beliefs, how is anyone to know that what they believe is true.I would be most interested in Backsider's opinion on this. If we accept for a moment that you did have a bias, how on earth would you be able to detect it, or even know that it is there.Although the study of knowledge and beliefs is fascinating, based on what I've already seen, I have serious doubt that backsider's opinions on epistemology contain the secrets of video poker training, much less the universe.  Our big chance at what exactly?  Different people think different things are true; many have trouble changing their beliefs even in the face of what others might think was overwhelming evidence.  That's not a revelation.  I think you could see that in any Democrat vs. Republican exchange.  Many other examples apply.  Eduardo gave you an imaginative scenario.  Academics have theorized and agonized over this for centuries.  And if we want to ponder our navel a little more deeply and apply your key premise of not knowing the truth of what we know to our discussion thus far, we can't really know for certain whether any or all of the previous statements are true.  If shadowman says something nice about backsider, are we all suddenly going to acquire the ability to determine whether our beliefs are in fact true?  <sorry, obvious sarcastic rhetorical question...but with a point:>  backsider is responsible for his own behavior; it is not shadowman's or anyone else's fault that he exhibits many of the reflection techniques. The reason that I posted on this thread rather than yours is that originally, I anticipated finishing off this thread by making a more complete list of Standard Reflection Techniques so you could have a more complete understanding of the preconceived notions of many who are not as receptive as you would prefer.  Also, the first quote box was from this thread.  But at this time, I think that would be adding more fuel to a fire that is already burning fairly warmly to post additional characteristics.  It would be good beyond entertainment value for those that disapprove of both current and prior users of these techniques and for those who didn't experience prior rants; I would like to complete the list so that it can serve as a better future reference.  It can be used to help others avoid getting embroiled in verbal jousting that draws you in and sullies you as if you were trading punches with a tarbaby.  It can protect you from the fallout you get when you try to protect the interests of a reflection by calling on others to be more understanding of them.But that is a post for another time.  Hopefully, I won't have to post the list at all.Frank, I do apologize to you for the collateral damage.  I don't believe any of this was your intention.  You tried at first to be a peacemaker and a Good Samaritan; I'm not sure now, but you appear to be leaning more towards a devil's advocate (I'm using this term in the colloquial sense, not trying to suggest that the primary antagonist is Lucifer).I really would like to learn more about your study, but my knowledge of the scientific method makes me doubt the usability of the information that I'm seeing thus far.  And there is no way I want to get involved in discussing belief systems further under the current atmosphere.    I hope to have better conversations in the future with less controversial issues (or posters).I'll close with a bit of word play on one of your recent posts.It has been found that their is a direct correlation between IQ and the difficulty in reversing type 1 errors. Therefore, people who believe themselves to be intelligent are also less likely to ever think themselves wrong.There is an error in logic here. People who simply BELIEVE they are intelligent may not ACTUALLY have a high IQ; this belief may be wrong (I'm sure you know people who exemplify this situation).  So, if someone merely BELIEVES they are intelligent but has a lower IQ, according to the argument here, they are MORE likely to be able to change their beliefs, not LESS.  And how would they ever know for certain whether they were truly intelligent?You really should read the works of  Michael Shermer. He's done the definitive research on this subject.How do you know he has done the definitive research?  Do you mean that what he has written most closely correlates with what you believe to be true?And, armed with this new information, I'm a little concerned with whether or not I can believe the advice that you give.  With an IQ of 148, which you reported in your book, you may have the highest IQ in this thread and therefore the most rigid beliefs.  Gosh, you're right.  This IS complicated!

[backsider]

Who reads long posts like that?

[shadowman]

Who reads long posts like that?


 
Those who are interested.
 
New2vp once again demonstrates that logic can be a useful tool. Great post.

[New2vp]

bs, Take your pick of answersA.  Not interested?  Than I guess I don't expect a rebuttal from you...unless you employ the common tactic of complaining about something that I never said.B.  It doesn't take long to post if you don't have anything new to say.C.  Not people with short attention spans.D.  Or those uninterested in facts.Why do you care?  I'll save you the reading time:  You won't like it and you won't agree with it, but others may wish to.

[damule]

Great "long" post New!!!

[faygo]

[QUOTE=backsider] Who reads long posts like that?


 
Those who are interested.
 
New2vp once again demonstrates that logic can be a useful tool. Great post.[/QUOTE]


 
I read every word, somtimes more then once.
 
Here! Here!