Here's one that started in TCC, as a kind of "Of course Psychology is a proper Science, you silly Wiccan!" post, then developed into the kind of blaaaah blahdy blah meandering blurty rant that needs to be released into an environment where such things can realistically be left to prosper, or to rot, stink, and die according to their merits.
So here goes.
Psychology IS a proper Science, you mumbling superstitious thwickyn, The fact that it is (mostly) abused by people in order to influence others doesn't detract from it's validity as a Science. Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of Wiccans, tricksters, charlatans,
and mountebanks. And what is their legacy? Superstition, Religion, and fear of the *insert Goblin/Communist/Bogeyman of choice* under your beds!
Now (for better or worse) our understanding of how the mind works, and the dynamics of Human behaviour are pretty accessible to anyone who wants to know, in meticulously researched and documented format. We have working, formulaic techniques for achieving specific results, the same as we have in Physics, or Chemistry.
The science of Psychology, is applied as the Science of manipulation. We are fed impulse triggers, reinforced by repetition, all day long on TV by advertisers. That's just applied Psychology. Cause and effect. A pretty shitty application of Psychology IMO, but it works every time. But just because that is one of the most exploitative and base examples of it's abuse, doesn't mean the same techniques couldn't be used, just as effectively in beneficial ways.
The staggering extent to which we have been manipulated psychologically, throughout History, is not a comfortable revelation, and it (quite rightly) scares the living shit out of people. But at least Psychology, as a Science, can show us which particular historical tricksters, figured out how to work their Mojos on people, how they applied it, and why it worked.
For instance, Look at the way Hitler manipulated the German people in his climb to power. Without using Psychology as a referential tool of explaination, the only way to describe what happened there, would be in terms of him casting "MaHJicK spellZ" over the whole population, or using "DemoniAcal influenceS" to command the Soul of the Nation. And while that might be kind of valid as an explanation, for simple, superstitious Medieval Peasants, the exact mechanics of what he did can be precisely mapped with all the relevant dynamics named and explained scientifically, unambiguously, and empirically using Psychology.
It won't stop people from falling for the same tricks, from all bloody manner of psychopathic madmen, but at least we can (If we care to) tell when they're doing it now. Which brings us to another uncomfortable moot point.
Now we have means of spotting the tricks, we also get to choose whether to follow, or resist. Unfortunately that means taking responsibility for ourselves. And it seems on the whole, people aren't quite ready for that one yet.
So now we knowingly allow them to do it to us, by making justifications where we really shouldn't. And that is not looking good.
Let's face it, we all know our leaders are ruthless, conniving, self serving liars, cheats and thieves. But we justify allowing them access to power, using old, tired devices like absolving our responsibilities to somebody else "political process"
and falling for that colossal old lie, "Might is right" "Democracy" or whatever flavor of turd our systems of government dress it up as. Now we all have access to the same 'Technology', on a personal level, as anyone else. And make no mistake, Psychology is a technology. ( An "exact knowledge") Which brings us nicely around to "Territory", because territory, whether personal or collective, is claimed, and maintained through the use of Psychological dynamics.
At it's most basic, it's simply the ability to say, with conviction "This is MY territory, and in it, I am sovereign". That disempowers the ones who say "You will comply with my wishes". If enough people say it, then it changes everything, dramatically. Like in Libya, today, or the **insert name of favourite rebellion** when the oppressed masses rose up as one, and the whole fucking show
If we suffer no trespasses upon our personal Territory, and tacitly agree to uphold each other's sovereignty over theirs , there would be no need for anyone else to spoon feed govern us, according to their particular paradigm, no matter how benign or despotic they are.
Territory is a necessary dynamic for Humans to prosper, and be healthy. But we need to define it for ourselves before we can draw it's borders and expect others to respect them. In this way, the whole World and it's resources can become the territory of everyone who lives in it. For instance, if you need to access a water source, then you can, nobody can effectively claim all the water as 'their rightful territory', because territory is not just a geographical thing, but a psychological one. So if you are thirsty, then that water is your territory, and you can rightfully drink as much as you need. But if you want to own it all, that is overstepping your boundaries, and anyway, you won't be able to maintain any effective border control over it.
A person with no proportional concept of where their own territory begins and ends, is invariably either incorporated as a part of someone else's territory, (consensual, practical, and acceptable) or they invade everyone else's territory, until somebody (Us, not just anyone else) stops them. That's our job, as a ruling sovereigns.
But allowing someone else to be the ruling sovereign over millions of other people's lives isn't just unfair, it's stupid, insane, and always, always ends up in a huge ugly mess.
So define what you are sovereign over, maintain your borders, seek not to encroach on what is not yours, and then we'll see how it goes, shall we? Are we all agreed?
"Yeah, but, . . . . . . . . . . NO!"
No yeah, buts! No capitulation, or false justification, or spurious claims will be upheld. No more bullshit, because that doesn't actually work out so well for us. No need for coercion, if we all agree on those things that there is no reasonable argument against.
The USA had such a thing in their grasp once, in it's Bill of Rights. It's Constitution, before you started bolting "Yeah, buts" "Amendments" onto it. It was fine as it was! You didn't realise it at the time, but it was almost perfect. Hindsight, (Epimetheus) is just a tool, that enables us to develop Foresight. (Prometheus) And the development of foresight is absolutely essential for turning cabbage headed monkeys, into proper Hu-mans.
They'll still have lapses where they start chucking shit at each other, but they'll be capable of realising that all that shit just stinks the place up, fot them as much as for their targets, and hopefully stop before they get left behind as recidivist stupid superstitious hippy dippy "Cuntjurors, practitioners of "Divers Arts, & Warlockery" or we burn them at the stake. leave them to fester in their shit covered rat holes. Either way, they're not coming with us, if they insist on stinking of shit all the time.
It's no good to just say "My Grandpappy stank of shit all his life, and it didn't do him any harm"! Or to pretend there's no stink there at all. Shit smells like that for a reason. The reason is to remind us to get as far away from it as possible, not to chuck it around like confetti, and pretend it's clever. It's not. It never was.
If that's how you roll, then feel free to FUCK OFF AND DEVOLVE into Homo Foetidus Cacoturdus, just do it a long way away, or we will burn you all until the stink has gone.
Now, where was I? :argh!:
Freud wasn't the first psychologist by a long shot, just the most popular, and he's a huge part of the reason people don't take psychology seriously today. His work bears about as much relationship to science as Aristotelian physics does.
I'd have gone with Wilhelm Wundt.
Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 06:03:27 PM
Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.
THIS.
I rather liked it, BB.
NICE!!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 06:04:25 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 06:03:27 PM
Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.
THIS.
I rather liked it, BB.
Thirded!
:mittens:
I'm a psych major, so that's where my biases lie. My thoughts/agreements/added discussion:
-Of course psychology is a science. It occupies a strange realm in science because the more we learn about the Universe (by which I mean our advances in physics, chemistry and biology) the more it straddles the line between the "hard" and "soft" sciences. Physics determines chemistry determines biology determines (through a shit ton of complications and with a lot of philosophical arguments about the nature of free will tossed in) psychology. It's all connected.
-The potential uses of psychology as a science are varied, and history repeatedly shows that potential can have both constructive and destructive aspects. In some ways, furthering knowledge of how the human mind works is even more fraught with peril for abuse than has been uncovering the secrets of atomic energy.
-It's really stupid for those who practice "magick" not to see magick for what it really is: applied psychology (and sociology, actually). How can you read something like The Satanic Witch or The Holy Books of Thelema and not comprehend that the great "magicians" aren't beings imbued with supernatural powers but really just IRL tricksters and trolls who apply their studied understandings of human behavior to manipulate people and social structures? (I know one answer to that is that these "pagans" are too busy reading Sylvia Browne to study Aleister Crowley, but c'mon.)
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 11, 2011, 06:59:52 PM
:mittens:
I'm a psych major, so that's where my biases lie. My thoughts/agreements/added discussion:
-Of course psychology is a science. It occupies a strange realm in science because the more we learn about the Universe (by which I mean our advances in physics, chemistry and biology) the more it straddles the line between the "hard" and "soft" sciences. Physics determines chemistry determines biology determines (through a shit ton of complications and with a lot of philosophical arguments about the nature of free will tossed in) psychology. It's all connected.
-The potential uses of psychology as a science are varied, and history repeatedly shows that potential can have both constructive and destructive aspects. In some ways, furthering knowledge of how the human mind works is even more fraught with peril for abuse than has been uncovering the secrets of atomic energy.
-It's really stupid for those who practice "magick" not to see magick for what it really is: applied psychology (and sociology, actually). How can you read something like The Satanic Witch or The Holy Books of Thelema and not comprehend that the great "magicians" aren't beings imbued with supernatural powers but really just IRL tricksters and trolls who apply their studied understandings of human behavior to manipulate people and social structures? (I know one answer to that is that these "pagans" are too busy reading Sylvia Browne to study Aleister Crowley, but c'mon.)
Most of these "pagans" are too lazy to read anything heavier than spellbooks by Cunningham. They haven't touched Crowley, let alone Adler, Starhawk, or Bonewits, all of whom are part of a very basic neopaganism reading list for people who want to actually understand the ritual.
But they don't want to understand the ritual. They want mahadjique.
Thanks Guys. Re-reading it, it seems more coherent than I remember. All I know is it would have been wasted in TCC on people whining about how psychology wasn't proper science. Not that I'm claiming to be a psychologist, but from people who still put milk out for the wee folk, it comes across as pretty facile.
But as far as inner territories go, after not watching any TV at all for about 9 months, I'm a lot more selective about what I will watch now. And the bit I really find intrusive is the commercials. The little tricks they use to embed themselves into our minds, the repetition of certain words, an then when a chink of identification is opened, they crowbar as many trigger words, spurious pseudo-scientific bullshit, and brand association hooks as they can get in 30 seconds. Then finish with a repulsive but catchy jingle or phrase. "Because you're worth it" or some other shit. It's a hostile incursion, exploiting peoples most receptive waking mind state, and I'm glad I have enough understanding of this "not really science" to be able to see how they do it.
And if they can openly apply these techniques to re-enforce Brand Loyalties, then they will certainly be applying them covertly for other, less ethical and more manipulative reasons too, like gradually polarizing whole populations to accept harmful malware, like the Islamophobia that has been carefully nurtured in the West over the last 15-20 years. Next thing we know, we're involved in three separate conflicts in the middle east. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, how much easier it is to go to War on behalf of a population already filled with subconscious reasoning over-rides, and embedded, ready formed opinions on what constitutes "reasonable provocation. Frightening stuff really.
Quote from: BadBeast on March 18, 2011, 02:09:25 PM
The USA had such a thing in their grasp once, in it's Bill of Rights. It's Constitution, before you started bolting "Yeah, buts" "Amendments" onto it. It was fine as it was! You didn't realise it at the time, but it was almost perfect.
Unless you happened to be Black or female.
TGRR,
Knows that only one amendment ever restricted rights, and it's been appealed. Amendments were never the problem, the problem is that nobody pays attention to the constitution, anymore.
WE DO!
\
:teabagger1:
Says "FUCK THE POOR", don't it?
\
:rush:
Also, some psychology is science. It can be measured, tested, and repeated. Leary's work on "circuits", for example, is used by advertisers and the US government (military basic training is the most obvious example), because it WORKS. EVERY TIME.
On the other hand, a pile of it is failed ideas that people still teach as valid. Freud, for example, is utter shit, but doesn't invalidate the parts of psychology that actually are measurable.
I look at Freud in much the same way I look at Plato: he's someone whose major contribution was asking interesting questions and inspiring later students to dig deeper into the field, even if his own answers were shit most of the time.
Luckily, while Freud's still studied for his part in the historical narrative, mainstream psychology nowadays doesn't seem to pay his ideas much mind, at least not as a be-all, end-all approach. It's more of a "while experiments and later discoveries about brain structure have made Freud's ideas about X fall out of favor, his concept of Y did lead to studies in Z, which found that..." kind of stuff.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 11, 2011, 07:33:13 PM
I look at Freud in much the same way I look at Plato: he's someone whose major contribution was asking interesting questions and inspiring later students to dig deeper into the field, even if his own answers were shit most of the time.
Luckily, while Freud's still studied for his part in the historical narrative, mainstream psychology nowadays doesn't seem to pay his ideas much mind, at least not as a be-all, end-all approach. It's more of a "while experiments and later discoveries about brain structure have made Freud's ideas about X fall out of favor, his concept of Y did lead to studies in Z, which found that..." kind of stuff.
Yeah, Plato was a windy old fraud.
Another thing: Maslow has been utterly discredited by America™. Here, your every need is met. People don't "self-actualize" when that happens, they become fat, useless teabaggers, and spend all their time worrying about what the other monkeys are doing.
If you want "self-actualization", lean on the monkeys, hard. That's where you get Gandhi and King and Franklin. When you stop fucking with them, you get Sarah Palin. It's analogous to genetic load.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 07:25:15 PM
Also, some psychology is science. It can be measured, tested, and repeated. Leary's work on "circuits", for example, is used by advertisers and the US government (military basic training is the most obvious example), because it WORKS. EVERY TIME.
On the other hand, a pile of it is failed ideas that people still teach as valid. Freud, for example, is utter shit, but doesn't invalidate the parts of psychology that actually are measurable.
Agreed. And who knows what other mind fuckery they got from the MKULTRA Research . You can be certain they have some pretty polished and failsafe mind reaming tools in the back room, ready for deployment.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 06:03:27 PM
Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.
When faced with "Psychology isn't a science", envoke the might Wilhelm Wundt.
That he was an early psychologyist is a moot point. The man could make water walk on his surface.
The mention of his name makes the average new age spagbandit shit themselves and flee.
I think you meant "invoke".
:)
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
What.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
I hope not. Cause that would mean I'm doing it the hard way
:sad:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
What.
Psychologists abuse science and are easily manipulated by 14 year olds.
Shamans are effective because they are masters of social dynamics.
:magick:
I have never "UNG'd" before. Depending on what gets said, I just might.
Phox,
Money's on UNG.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
Not quite what I said, but correct in a way. Shamans through out history have had to rely on observation and repetition of results to achieve their goals. Not today's science, but part of the foundation of it.
I was trying to point out the importance of understanding psychology to leaders of groups and attempting to make the point that that knowledge was necessary no matter what the technological level, but obviously I didn't get that part across very clearly. Not surprising seeing as I'm going on about 3 hours of sleep. Basically for someone to lead a group of people they have to understand the dynamics of the group and of the people in it (that part gets more general the larger the group). They don't have to be scientists or even have a degree is anything to do this, but it is still the application of knowledge of psychological principles even if the people applying the knowledge don't realize that.
Something can be a science and used scientifically both skillfully and unskillfully. The ways I have seen it applied in the field of psychological therapy have been very unskillful and very unscientific. The fact that a fourteen year old boy can fool someone with a college degree at her own profession was an attempt to make that point.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 03:45:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
Not quite what I said, but correct in a way. Shamans through out history have had to rely on observation and repetition of results to achieve their goals. Not today's science, but part of the foundation of it.
I was trying to point out the importance of understanding psychology to leaders of groups and attempting to make the point that that knowledge was necessary no matter what the technological level, but obviously I didn't get that part across very clearly. Not surprising seeing as I'm going on about 3 hours of sleep. Basically for someone to lead a group of people they have to understand the dynamics of the group and of the people in it (that part gets more general the larger the group). They don't have to be scientists or even have a degree is anything to do this, but it is still the application of knowledge of psychological principles even if the people applying the knowledge don't realize that.
Something can be a science and used scientifically both skillfully and unskillfully. The ways I have seen it applied in the field of psychological therapy have been very unskillful and very unscientific. The fact that a fourteen year old boy can fool someone with a college degree at her own profession was an attempt to make that point.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
ETA: Damn, Roger beat me to it.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 12, 2011, 03:25:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
What.
Psychologists abuse science and are easily manipulated by 14 year olds.
Shamans are effective because they are masters of social dynamics.
:magick:
So I was reading this textbook recently, it was on evolutionary cognitive neuroscience...
Is that psychology?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
This.
In addition, I posit that most people will generally take the things one says to a counselor/therapist/psychologist at face value, under the assumption that people actually want to get better. Flaw in the system, sure, but still.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America,
well not with you as a rain-god.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 04:01:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America,
well not with you as a rain-god.
Fuck them. "Bring me women", I said. They threw the women down wells.
"NO CORN FOR YOU," I replied, "YOU FUCKING CUNTS."
And everyone died.
Moral: When Roger says he wants women, he'd prefer they weren't drowned first.
:spittake: <----- That literally just happened
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 12, 2011, 03:48:36 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 12, 2011, 03:25:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
What.
Psychologists abuse science and are easily manipulated by 14 year olds.
Shamans are effective because they are masters of social dynamics.
:magick:
So I was reading this textbook recently, it was on evolutionary cognitive neuroscience...
Is that psychology?
THUNDERBOLTS UPON THY SCROTUM IS PSYCHOLOGY!!!
:lol: Fine, fine. Just needling you for having such a magnificently large paintbrush.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 12, 2011, 04:11:34 AM
:lol: Fine, fine. Just needling you for having such a magnificently large paintbrush.
I was explaining to Phox how I was interpreting Wyldkat's post—probably should've done a better job showing the sarcastic intent.
FUCK MY READING COMPREHENSION no it's there I see it now.
Agh. See what happens when Sig only drinks half a pot of coffee for breakfast?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 04:07:25 AM
:spittake: <----- That literally just happened
Roger made it rain on yer keyboard!
I will say though I do kind of agree with her on the group psychology thing. Although sure "rain dances" did shit all for the weather it probably did wonders in maintaining the power structure of that society.
Of course that was an extreme example, and of course a negative one but the principle should apply to more positive social makeups and smaller ones.
I wouldn't call that a science though, at least off the top of my head. It could fall into a field of study perhaps.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 03:45:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
Not quite what I said, but correct in a way. Shamans through out history have had to rely on observation and repetition of results to achieve their goals. Not today's science, but part of the foundation of it.
I was trying to point out the importance of understanding psychology to leaders of groups and attempting to make the point that that knowledge was necessary no matter what the technological level, but obviously I didn't get that part across very clearly. Not surprising seeing as I'm going on about 3 hours of sleep. Basically for someone to lead a group of people they have to understand the dynamics of the group and of the people in it (that part gets more general the larger the group). They don't have to be scientists or even have a degree is anything to do this, but it is still the application of knowledge of psychological principles even if the people applying the knowledge don't realize that.
Something can be a science and used scientifically both skillfully and unskillfully. The ways I have seen it applied in the field of psychological therapy have been very unskillful and very unscientific. The fact that a fourteen year old boy can fool someone with a college degree at her own profession was an attempt to make that point.
What you're talking about has very little to do with psychology. For starters that theoretical 14 year old boy probably isn't talking to a psychologist. He's talking to a social worker or a psychiatrist or some other profession that does therapy.. Now yes, therapy derives from psychology, but so do a hell of a lot of other things you aren't even considering.
What Roger was talking about, the way we train modern soldiers? That's psychology. Apple's product design and marketing departments are full to bursting with psychology majors. When somebody asks you if you want fries with that, psychology.
Those shamans you speak of have no psychology, they have personal opinions, and not the first clue how to seperate fact from delusion. They bear as much relationship to psychology as Aristotle does to modern physics. Sure they might be smart, and some of what they think is true might be correct, but they lack the basic methods for telling a good idea from a bad idea.
And don't tell me they learn by experience, learning by experience is how we got doctors who though leeching was a nifty idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AMblah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
From my study of shamanism I quickly lost any shred of credibility I might have on the subject.
How I read that post.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AMHeck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
For about never. But plenty of superstitious idiots thought that for a very long time.
I have identified your problem, Wyldkat. It appears as though there's an extremely high probability that you're talking completely out of your ass.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 12, 2011, 05:18:02 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 05:33:28 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 12, 2011, 05:18:02 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
Well fuck. Learned something today.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 10:07:20 PM
I think you meant "invoke".
:)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=envoke
Superstition is all about "repetition of results", it just doesn't compensate for cognitive biases and flaws
"Accidental reinforcement of a response can lead to superstitious behaviour. Skinner demonstrated the conditioning of such behaviour using pigeons. He set the dispenser to deliver food to animals in an operant chamber at fixed time intervals, for example every 15 minutes. The pigeons associated whatever behaviour they were engaging in at the time of the food being dispensed with the delivery of the food. The likelihood of those behaviours occuring then increased. Skinner conditioned pigeons to spin around in circles, nod their heads, or to make swaying motions." (Nye, 1992)
There was a book I read when I was a kid... I'm going to have to track it down, somehow... Was about a bunch of kids stuffed into an experiment... "House of Stairs," maybe? Pretty much the same thing as the pigeons, the food pellets dropping was what conditioned behavior...
ETA:
http://www.amazon.com/House-Stairs-William-Sleator/dp/0140345809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302609506&sr=8-1
Yeah, that's it...
Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 12, 2011, 05:18:02 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
Yes. But they didn't wear togas. :lol:
Quote from: Luna on April 12, 2011, 12:00:03 PM
There was a book I read when I was a kid... I'm going to have to track it down, somehow... Was about a bunch of kids stuffed into an experiment... "House of Stairs," maybe? Pretty much the same thing as the pigeons, the food pellets dropping was what conditioned behavior...
ETA:
http://www.amazon.com/House-Stairs-William-Sleator/dp/0140345809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302609506&sr=8-1
Yeah, that's it...
The pigeon thing made me flash back to that book.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 12, 2011, 05:18:02 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:46:53 AM
If Shamans used repetition to gauge outcomes, there wouldn't have been 1500 years of human sacrifice to bring rain in Meso-America, and the whole "ghost dance" and "bullet-proof shirts" things wouldn't have been very popular for long.
LOL I never said that everything that was done in the past by shamans (or anyone else for that matter) was proven right. Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
The trial and error and repetition of response comes into play with things like herbalism and certain healing rituals that are very firmly based on the psychological response and beliefs of the patient.
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
Yes. But they didn't wear togas. :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 12, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 12, 2011, 12:00:03 PM
There was a book I read when I was a kid... I'm going to have to track it down, somehow... Was about a bunch of kids stuffed into an experiment... "House of Stairs," maybe? Pretty much the same thing as the pigeons, the food pellets dropping was what conditioned behavior...
ETA:
http://www.amazon.com/House-Stairs-William-Sleator/dp/0140345809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302609506&sr=8-1
Yeah, that's it...
The pigeon thing made me flash back to that book.
I don't think I've ever actually run into anyone else who's recognized that book. I'd love to know who put the damn thing in an elementary school library, it freaked me out. I haven't read it since then... but I still remember it.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 05:33:28 AM
Really? Didn't like those toga wearing dudes with the fixation on little boys have an understanding that the world was both round but also revolved around the Sun? I could be wrong.
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.
Seeing as the topic was psychology and in all the research I have done, it plays a key role in the position and actions of most if not all leaders of people, religious or otherwise, I don't see how it isn't relevant. I'm not talking spells or any of that stuff, I'm talking about the ability of people to manipulate knowledge of psychology to further their goals as leaders. It's been a part of leadership since the dawn of humans and for most of human history the majority of leadership roles were directly related to religion, many leaders even being seen by the people as deities themselves. If that is not the ultimate sign of understanding how to manipulate people, I don't know what is.
Wyld, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're speaking on so many different levels that the different points you're trying to make are all mixing together into one big mess of contradiction, conflation, and correlation.
You might want to take a step back and re-think the various aspects of your argument and try again.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 03:41:43 AM
I have never "UNG'd" before.
I found this both comic & tragic at the same time.
I too have never UNNNNNG'd a post either....[sigh]
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 12, 2011, 05:35:43 PM
Wyld, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're speaking on so many different levels that the different points you're trying to make are all mixing together into one big mess of contradiction, conflation, and correlation.
You might want to take a step back and re-think the various aspects of your argument and try again.
Not a bad idea. Two nights of almost no sleep have got to be worse than one for thought cohesion... I can tell it's not coming across as clearly as I'd like.
Quote from: Mangrove on April 12, 2011, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 03:41:43 AM
I have never "UNG'd" before.
I found this both comic & tragic at the same time.
I too have never UNNNNNG'd a post either....[sigh]
Here I'll help...
I THINK ALL IMPORTANT DECISIONS SHOULD ONLY BE MADE AFTER CHANNELING THE MAGICK RELEASED THROUGH THE POWER OF KABBALAH!!!!... and Mangrove has a stupid nose
/
/
:nigel:
Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology.
Manipulation is more of a proto-science, like alchemy, or psychoanalysis.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The ones that magically existed back when everything was "philosophy"
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 14, 2011, 03:50:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The ones that magically existed back when everything was "philosophy"
Natural philosophy ftw.
Phox,
Knows Lucretius was
right.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on April 12, 2011, 08:47:56 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 10:07:20 PM
I think you meant "invoke".
:)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=envoke
:lulz: Please please please please be serious.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 04:19:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
I'll be writing their Discordian Devil's Dictionary tomorrow. LMNO has had it all his way long enough.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:21:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 04:19:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
I'll be writing their Discordian Devil's Dictionary tomorrow. LMNO has had it all his way long enough.
This sounds worth waking up for!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:21:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 04:19:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
I'll be writing their Discordian Devil's Dictionary tomorrow. LMNO has had it all his way long enough.
You're just
trying to pad your personal file at this point, aren't you?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 14, 2011, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:21:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 04:19:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
I'll be writing their Discordian Devil's Dictionary tomorrow. LMNO has had it all his way long enough.
You're just trying to pad your personal file at this point, aren't you?
Go for broke, that's what old Uncle Leonard used to say.
Quote from: Nigel on April 14, 2011, 04:47:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:21:01 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 04:19:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 04:08:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 14, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
The Vatican's Secret Science Suppression Society. You have to be a 13th level Illuminatus to know about it. I've probably said too much.
Expect to see Mr Scratch & Mr Chop sometime later this week.
They sound like pleasant, reasonable fellows...
I'll be writing their Discordian Devil's Dictionary tomorrow. LMNO has had it all his way long enough.
This sounds worth waking up for!
It'll be sometime after 11AM, real time.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 13, 2011, 09:49:04 PM
Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology.
I don't think that's really in question.
I
think what Wildcat is trying to say, is that shamans (or in fact any leader ever) have/had an intuitive knowledge of social dynamics and human thinking (which is, in case you needed reminding, rather central to psychology). While this is almost certainly true, as any leader either has to be either considerably stronger or considerably smarter to stay on top*, equating shamanistic practices with psychological study is pretty much bullshit. Whether shamans had a knowledge of the workings of the human mind or not is basically irrelevant, as I can pretty much guarantee you it was an
informal knowledge. Much like (I can't remember who said it) Chi being described as an intuitive metaphor for psychosomatics, whatever shamanistic "study" may have occurred does not equate to science, regardless of how effective it may or may not have been, as useful and effective as a symbolic shamanistic interpretation of social dynamics may be in terms of manipulation and leadership, it is still symbolic. It does not explain the underlying causal mechanisms, nor does it attempt to, nor does it have the tools that one might use to do so.
@ the OP: Nice rant, I thought it was all getting a bit anarcholame towards the end, but then it turned out to be anarchoawesome.
xx
edd
*there is some evidence that the need for greater understanding of social dynamics is one of the main adaptive pressures that drove the evolution of our massive brains and that our "intelligence" is largely geared towards manipulating the social environment.
I just hate the word "shaman". It makes me think of Cafe Druids and Cherohonkeys.
RB: :golfclap:
An analogy:
Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts. That's how the car works.
Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.
PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 14, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
RB: :golfclap:
An analogy:
Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts. That's how the car works.
Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.
PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.
Psychaitrist: "YOU HAVE TO POUR PROZAC DOWN THE GAS TANK."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 14, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
RB: :golfclap:
An analogy:
Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts. That's how the car works.
Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.
PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.
Psychaitrist: "YOU HAVE TO POUR PROZAC DOWN THE GAS TANK."
Win.
Shaman: WALK THRICE WIDDERSHINES AROUND YE CARRIAGE, RAISE HIGH THE TOTEM OF ALL OPENINGS AND INTONE "OOZHO MEEKE ABABACK-WAH" IF FUCK ALL HAPPENS YOU JUST DIDN'T *BELIEVE* ENOUGH
Sorry ahead of time for the length.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 06:22:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 12, 2011, 05:35:43 PM
Wyld, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're speaking on so many different levels that the different points you're trying to make are all mixing together into one big mess of contradiction, conflation, and correlation.
You might want to take a step back and re-think the various aspects of your argument and try again.
Not a bad idea. Two nights of almost no sleep have got to be worse than one for thought cohesion... I can tell it's not coming across as clearly as I'd like.
So I did and read back over the whole thread this morning. I can't find the contradictions you are talking about though and although some of it was a bit exhaustion blurred the points I was trying to make are there.
Most of it tied directly into these parts of the OP:
Quote from: BadBeast on March 18, 2011, 02:09:25 PMThe fact that it is (mostly) abused by people in order to influence others doesn't detract from it's validity as a Science. Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of Wiccans, tricksters, charlatans,
and mountebanks. And what is their legacy? Superstition, Religion, and fear of the *insert Goblin/Communist/Bogeyman of choice* under your beds!
---
The staggering extent to which we have been manipulated psychologically, throughout History, is not a comfortable revelation, and it (quite rightly) scares the living shit out of people. But at least Psychology, as a Science, can show us which particular historical tricksters, figured out how to work their Mojos on people, how they applied it, and why it worked.
For instance, Look at the way Hitler manipulated the German people in his climb to power. Without using Psychology as a referential tool of explaination, the only way to describe what happened there, would be in terms of him casting "MaHJicK spellZ" over the whole population, or using "DemoniAcal influenceS" to command the Soul of the Nation.
I really liked the OP and was very interested in a discussion about some of the aspects of it. The response I got actually surprised me. It wasn't what I had expected of these forums at all. I mean I had expected to get flamed for joining here, but I hadn't expected the assumptions and preconceptions that got thrown at me ITT. Different people research different things. Some people research wold leaders, sports cars or well pretty much anything there is out there to research. I personally have done a lot of research on shamanism and have found that there are a lot of tie ins with psychology and other modern fields of study. It's right there for anyone to read about, it's part of history. Rather than talking out my ass about things I know nothing about I was working off of a base of research so as to NOT be talking out of my ass... For some reason, even though the concepts were there many people chose to simply latch onto a word "shamanism" and immediately disregard the idea that anything serious could be involved. (To those who didn't, thank you.) My posts were also misread (I never said shamans were scientists, for example, at least I didn't see anywhere that I did) simply to further people's attempts to drag the concepts I was trying to get across through the mud. I had expected intelligent debate, and there was some, but much less than I had thought there would be.
Rather than simply reiterating the same things I've already said, I'm going to quote Roaring Biscuit! who summarized it nicely already:
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on April 14, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 13, 2011, 09:49:04 PM
Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology.
I don't think that's really in question.
I think what Wildcat is trying to say, is that shamans (or in fact any leader ever) have/had an intuitive knowledge of social dynamics and human thinking (which is, in case you needed reminding, rather central to psychology). While this is almost certainly true, as any leader either has to be either considerably stronger or considerably smarter to stay on top*, equating shamanistic practices with psychological study is pretty much bullshit. Whether shamans had a knowledge of the workings of the human mind or not is basically irrelevant, as I can pretty much guarantee you it was an informal knowledge. Much like (I can't remember who said it) Chi being described as an intuitive metaphor for psychosomatics, whatever shamanistic "study" may have occurred does not equate to science, regardless of how effective it may or may not have been, as useful and effective as a symbolic shamanistic interpretation of social dynamics may be in terms of manipulation and leadership, it is still symbolic. It does not explain the underlying causal mechanisms, nor does it attempt to, nor does it have the tools that one might use to do so.
@ the OP: Nice rant, I thought it was all getting a bit anarcholame towards the end, but then it turned out to be anarchoawesome.
xx
edd
*there is some evidence that the need for greater understanding of social dynamics is one of the main adaptive pressures that drove the evolution of our massive brains and that our "intelligence" is largely geared towards manipulating the social environment.
It's not exactly how I would have phrased it, but no where in any of my posts did I say that there was any formalized study of psychology by shamans. What they (and other historical leaders) did and learned thought trial and error and centuries of practice helped lay a base and bring up concepts that would later become studied and explained in the field of psychology. It all ties directly into the OP "Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of
Wiccans, tricksters, charlatans, and mountebanks.
I also liked this:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 14, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
RB: :golfclap:
An analogy:
Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts. That's how the car works.
Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.
PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.
The only thing I would add is that shamans might have opened the hood and dumped some sand in there, knowing that it might effect something and seemed like a good idea to try at the time. ;)
This seems to have evolved to make the point that everything builds off of what came before it, althought that hadn't been my original intent. Our understanding of science, the human brain, everything is constantly evolving and changing. As the OP said we now understand what is going on in the field of psychology much more than we ever have in the past. We have the choice to use or ignore that knowledge. There are times when knowingly ignoring that knowledge is a good thing and times when using it matters. I'm teaching my kids how the adds on TV are made to manipulate them into wanting to buy things. I want them to be able to make the choice on whether to use that knowledge or not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 03:29:19 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?
Which scientists were those?
Already answered in this thread:
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 05:33:28 AM
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
Exactly.
I think you have a misinformed idea of what the word "science" actually means.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 14, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
I really liked the OP and was very interested in a discussion about some of the aspects of it. The response I got actually surprised me. It wasn't what I had expected of these forums at all. I mean I had expected to get flamed for joining here, but I hadn't expected the assumptions and preconceptions that got thrown at me ITT. Different people research different things.
Just to throw in my .02....While I am all for researching whatever strikes your fancy (I, personally have an interest in "paranormal", topics, whatever that may entail), I think that some of the clashing is coming from the fact that while (from my experience), the people on this forum appreciate having the research/knowledge/experience behind what you are talking about, topics of majikque and the like don't hold much water here.
So for some/many, comparing psychologists and shamans, however indirectly, would be sort of like me trying to compare the speed of a horse to a unicorn, however, well-thought out the research may be.
I know you already tried to clear this up, just figured I'd throw out a reason as to why your expectations may not have been met
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 14, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Which scientists were those?
Already answered in this thread:
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 05:33:28 AM
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
1. Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.
2. No
scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism. Catholic church did.
Or post links.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 12, 2011, 03:06:03 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Um.
Wait.
Science = Shamanism?
Fuck YEAH I'm a Shaman.
And if you listen close, I may be willing to "grant" you my shamanistic secrets of life. For a price.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 09:04:23 PM
1. Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.
2. No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism. Catholic church did.
Or post links.
I assume you mean geocentrism?
Does Ptolemy count as a scientist?
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 03:45:02 AM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 02:33:31 AM
Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science. It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad. That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science. I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing. When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist....
From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one. Some of the stories out there are amazing. The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect.
It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long. That or their immediate support group does...
Not quite what I said, but correct in a way. Shamans through out history have had to rely on observation and repetition of results to achieve their goals. Not today's science, but part of the foundation of it.
I was trying to point out the importance of understanding psychology to leaders of groups and attempting to make the point that that knowledge was necessary no matter what the technological level, but obviously I didn't get that part across very clearly. Not surprising seeing as I'm going on about 3 hours of sleep. Basically for someone to lead a group of people they have to understand the dynamics of the group and of the people in it (that part gets more general the larger the group). They don't have to be scientists or even have a degree is anything to do this, but it is still the application of knowledge of psychological principles even if the people applying the knowledge don't realize that.
Something can be a science and used scientifically both skillfully and unskillfully. The ways I have seen it applied in the field of psychological therapy have been very unskillful and very unscientific. The fact that a fourteen year old boy can fool someone with a college degree at her own profession was an attempt to make that point.
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.
Seeing as the topic was psychology and in all the research I have done, it plays a key role in the position and actions of most if not all leaders of people, religious or otherwise, I don't see how it isn't relevant. I'm not talking spells or any of that stuff, I'm talking about the ability of people to manipulate knowledge of psychology to further their goals as leaders. It's been a part of leadership since the dawn of humans and for most of human history the majority of leadership roles were directly related to religion, many leaders even being seen by the people as deities themselves. If that is not the ultimate sign of understanding how to manipulate people, I don't know what is.
Bolded parts relevant to my position. Also, please to be noting what I said.
So... according to her... psychology and manipulation are interchangeable words.
Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology. P.E.R. I. O. D.
How this ties to the OP:
Quote from: BadBeast on March 18, 2011, 02:09:25 PM
Here's one that started in TCC, as a kind of "Of course Psychology is a proper Science, you silly Wiccan!" post, then developed into the kind of blaaaah blahdy blah meandering blurty rant that needs to be released into an environment where such things can realistically be left to prosper, or to rot, stink, and die according to their merits.
So here goes.
Psychology IS a proper Science, you mumbling superstitious thwickyn, The fact that it is (mostly) abused by people in order to influence others doesn't detract from it's validity as a Science. Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of Wiccans, tricksters, charlatans,
and mountebanks. And what is their legacy? Superstition, Religion, and fear of the *insert Goblin/Communist/Bogeyman of choice* under your beds!
Now (for better or worse) our understanding of how the mind works, and the dynamics of Human behaviour are pretty accessible to anyone who wants to know, in meticulously researched and documented format. We have working, formulaic techniques for achieving specific results, the same as we have in Physics, or Chemistry.
The science of Psychology, is applied as the Science of manipulation. We are fed impulse triggers, reinforced by repetition, all day long on TV by advertisers. That's just applied Psychology. Cause and effect. A pretty shitty application of Psychology IMO, but it works every time. But just because that is one of the most exploitative and base examples of it's abuse, doesn't mean the same techniques couldn't be used, just as effectively in beneficial ways.
[/b]
Applied psychology as manipulation =/= "Manipulation = understanding of psychology".
Quote from: BadBeast on March 18, 2011, 02:09:25 PM
The staggering extent to which we have been manipulated psychologically, throughout History, is not a comfortable revelation, and it (quite rightly) scares the living shit out of people. But at least Psychology, as a Science, can show us which particular historical tricksters, figured out how to work their Mojos on people, how they applied it, and why it worked.
For instance, Look at the way Hitler manipulated the German people in his climb to power. Without using Psychology as a referential tool of explaination, the only way to describe what happened there, would be in terms of him casting "MaHJicK spellZ" over the whole population, or using "DemoniAcal influenceS" to command the Soul of the Nation. And while that might be kind of valid as an explanation, for simple, superstitious Medieval Peasants, the exact mechanics of what he did can be precisely mapped with all the relevant dynamics named and explained scientifically, unambiguously, and empirically using Psychology.
It won't stop people from falling for the same tricks, from all bloody manner of psychopathic madmen, but at least we can (If we care to) tell when they're doing it now. Which brings us to another uncomfortable moot point.
Now we have means of spotting the tricks, we also get to choose whether to follow, or resist. Unfortunately that means taking responsibility for ourselves. And it seems on the whole, people aren't quite ready for that one yet.
So now we knowingly allow them to do it to us, by making justifications where we really shouldn't. And that is not looking good.
Analyzing manipulation through psychology =/= "Manipulation = understanding of psychology". After this, the rant does not have much to do with psychology in regard to understanding of .
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 12, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.
Please note what I said.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 14, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Which scientists were those?
Already answered in this thread:
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 12, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2011, 05:33:28 AM
There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.
See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.
1. Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.
2. No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced geo*centrism. Catholic church did.
Or post links.
*Corrected, I think
I've been reading
The Discovery of Dynamics by Julian Barbour recently. (It is awesome, if a bit over-exhaustive at times)
And yes, I would agree with point one. It is also questionable whether Aristarchus ever seriously advanced heliocentrism.
Point two is more difficult, since the concept of a "scientist" wasn't really concrete at any time before Kepler. But Tycho Brahe definitely counts, and he did have a geocentric model. Although, his model had the sun going round the Earth, but all the other planets going round the sun. So he was halfway there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_geo-heliocentric_astronomy
tl;dr: Roger is right, but I read an interesting book and wanted to share details.
Edit: Requia mentions Ptolemy, and his epicycle/deferent geocentric model was definitely the standard up until Copernicus. He and the Hellenistic astronomers were some of the first people to make detailed astronomical observations, and theorise based on them. But there is firstly, evidence that Ptolemy had a tendency to fudge his observations in favour of his theories, and secondly his measurement for the size of the moon (2 degrees) was 4 times too large. And no one seemed to question it.
So if he was a scientist, he wasn't a very good one...
Wyldkat, have you actually studied any upper division psychology courses at an accredited institute for higher learning?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 14, 2011, 11:34:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 14, 2011, 09:04:23 PM
1. Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.
2. No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism. Catholic church did.
Or post links.
I assume you mean geocentrism?
Does Ptolemy count as a scientist?
Yes. My mind was consumed by rage at this assbaggery.
No.
Political science has more to do with mastering manipulation than psychology (where it is merely a useful byproduct).
FUCK YEAH IMMA SHAMAN! I shall use my mastery of douchebaggery to sit as like unto a giant parasite on the top of your social pyramid by claiming a vast number of events have been prevented or made to happen through my excellent skill (no verification required). And then I shall be unseated by an unforseen event which causes much damage and that I take the blame for not preventing, through inflating expectations.
Wait, that sounds so familiar...
Quote from: - on April 15, 2011, 01:42:13 AM
Political science has more to do with mastering manipulation than psychology (where it is merely a useful byproduct).
FUCK YEAH IMMA SHAMAN! I shall use my mastery of douchebaggery to sit as like unto a giant parasite on the top of your social pyramid by claiming a vast number of events have been prevented or made to happen through my excellent skill (no verification required). And then I shall be unseated by an unforseen event which causes much damage and that I take the blame for not preventing, through inflating expectations.
Wait, that sounds so familiar...
:horrormirth:
Cain wins another one.
Yup. Cain wins. :lol:
Bollocks! I must have turned off my updates, because I thought this thread was pretty much done, so I'm just checking in again, :aaa: and fuck my old boots, it growed and got reely very good. Which pleases me lots. Especially as I had so little to do, except the wibbly rant at the start.
Imma gonna praps bump it in another 4 months. (Or is that too soon ?) I'll just add that Shamen are pretty fucking kewl in my book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFJdUJg4wOk
(And yes, that IS Gerry Sadovicz starring as Eb in the video)