Ah...a good topic for one of my last rants of the week. :-) --- In [email protected], bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > Anyone ever hear of the placebo effect? > > ************ > > I'm too intelligent, too field-independent, after 4 decades > of TM, to be susceptible to placebo effects of any kind, or > any other suggestibility-influenced items, like hypnosis.
This is a Fairfield Life classic. I mean, in 28 words it consolidates and expresses *the whole problem* with the TMO and with spirit- uality in general. This is why people who are "sold out" to Maharishi and TM (which, after all, in many cases is the *only* form of meditation they have ever tried, and the only teacher they have ever revered) are so able to ignore any information about either one that doesn't quite seem to "fit" into their ideal- ized ideas about htem. The thinking is, "That *can't* be true, because if it were that would make me look like a fool for believing what has been told to me for so long. And I *know* that I'm not a fool; to the contrary -- I am so intel- ligent and "field independent" that I'm just not susceptible to suggestion. That's for lesser people." Yeah, right. That's why stage hypnotists look for the volunteer from the audience who declares loudly, "I can't be hypnotized." In most cases they are the rubes who are the *most* easy to hypnotize. Bob, do you remember the numerous posts you've made to this forum reposting articles to support the idea that Britain is a "scorpion nation?" Where do you think you got that idea from? Do you remember ever posting something that suggests that TM is the best form of meditation in the world, far more effective than any other (indluding all those methods you have never personally experienced)? If so, where do you think those ideas came from? It's called suggestibility, Bob. It's also called "protecting my investment." Can I guess from what you say above and below that you personally *live* in a Vastu-compliant house, and that, if that is true, you spent more money on this house than most other people paid for their houses? If so, doncha think you might have a little some- thing *invested* in continuing to believe that Vastu has some effect? Could that "investment" have any- thing to do with 1) suggestibility (having been told of its value by someone with whom you lower your critical standards, as a result of long training in doing so), and 2) a fairly hefty financial *invest- ment* in Vastu, in the form of the home you live in? I may be off-base here; you may live in a trailer park for all I know. But I'm just riffing on the absolute certainty that pervades your statement above, and how that certainty makes you a sure "mark" for suggestibility in my opinion. The same "mark-ness" explains a great deal of the fervor that we see on FFL in those defending Maharishi and TM against all comers. They are defending, IMO, their *investment* in Maharishi and TM -- having dedi- cated years or decades of their lives to them, not to mention in many cases tens of thousands of dollars or more. More important, they are also defending their invest- ment in *what they've been told about themselves* by the person who has implanted all of the suggestions themselves. *They* are more intelligent and more "field independent" than all those "lesser" people around them. *They* are not like the drones of society; they're "special." And *they* are *so* special that *only they* can save the world, by bouncing on their butts them- selves and by cutting a big check every so often to the Let's Keep Maharishi's Relatives Living In The Style To Which They'd Like To Become Accustomed Foundation to pay so that other "special" people like themselves can Bounce On Their Butts For Peace. If you really believe what you said above, Bob, I suggest you go out into the world, approach someone (anyone) who has never heard of Maharishi and TM, and *describe* the lifestyle I've described above, which I don't think is too much of a characiture of a long-term TMer who is still heavily into the TM movement. Tell these strangers on the street what such a person believes and what he or she does with his money, and *then* trot out your "We're too intelligent and field-independent to be susceptible to suggestion" line. I think the stranger will laugh in your face. > But if you win the Florida lottery, feel free to conduct a double- > blind experiment: like get a pair of identical twins, and have them > live in two houses with their families, one the worst vastu, the > other ideal vastu. Tell the subjects that they are evaluating a > medicine of some sort, give them sugar pills, and ask how they are > feeling over the course of the study. Double-blind it by hiring grad > psych students to administer the questions who are unaware of the > true purpose of the study. A good suggestion, and one that I would welcome. Now here's a question that strikes to the heart of whether what you said about yourself is true or not. If such a study were conducted -- and in fact *several* such studies were conducted -- and they found *ZERO* correlation between living in Vastu housing and not, would you believe *then* that you might have been a little "open to suggestibility?" I suggest that you would not. You would continue to believe in "your own experience," experience that was described to you *before* you bought into it, and that thus falls into the category that most people would call "suggestibility." > But this study would certainly be a waste of time for me, since the > effects of vastu are now clear to me, although I was a reluctant > convert to this notion... Before you invested your money and your time and, most important, your image of yourself and how much more intelligent and field independent you are than the Great Unwashed around you? And now, *after* investing a great deal of time and money into what was suggested to you, you're declaring that you *weren't* suggestible? As Judy might say (or is that "bray?"), <horselaugh>. > ...more so because it seemed silly with the > slight penetration of TM in the world to be talking about rebuilding > every city in the world. It simply does not matter if vastu-talk > makes the movement look silly -- very soon the consciousness- > expanding powers of Vedic technology will convince everybody of the > worth of Vedic culture. Do I hear a bit of "I am 'special' because I know the 'truth' about Vastu" in this declaration, Bob? Again, please consider me the stranger-on-the-street from the above-suggested exercise in humility and engaging in reality. What you are describing appears to me to be the *ultimate* in suggestibility. No such experiments as you proposed above have *ever* taken place. As far as I know, the org that makes a fortune by *peddling* Vastu has never commissioned such a study (which one might think they'd do, if they act- ually believed what they were saying). There is ZERO evidence on a scientific level for your belief in the efficacy of Vastu. And yet you not only believe in it, you believe that the world is more than a little stupid and less intel- ligent and "field dependent" than YOU are because they *don't* believe it. I tell ya what, Bob -- it sounds to me, as a stranger on the street, as if you "know the truth" about the "value of Vastu" because you have *invested* a great deal of your money and your self-image *into* believing in Vastu. You were told what to expect, and -- surprise! -- you found it. And NO...that couldn't *possibly* be the result of suggestion or the placebo effect. You're too intelligent and "field independent" for that. Yeah, right.
