 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> I don't think the research is as categoric as he says. For example,
> it's been shown that in marriages, if at least one spouse has a very
> strong tendency to keep his irritation/anger hidden, the marriage is
> more likely to end up in a divorce than in marriages where the couple
> argues frequently.
Maybe it's just me, but somehow the *former* sounds better than the latter.
From the three possible options, keeping your anger in, which easily leads
to the second option, divorcing, and the third option being constantly arguing,
I would really prefer to end it if it just doesn't work. It makes no sense to
be constantly arguing and it's not healthy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The problem with #3 and NLP, is that they missed several of the other
> things Derren Brown did,
I thought the subliminal advertising bit he did (farther down on the right
of that page) was brilliant. Of course, it's possible it's all 100% staged,
but I don't think *all* of NLP is bogus. It's pretty easy to read someone
to tell if they're lying or not, for example, when you get good at it.
There's a reason professional poker players wear hats and sunglasses.
> Does pattern re-enforcement, word association and mirroring work?
> According to any psychologist I have asked, the answer has been yes. And
> not on the subconscious mind, but on the conscious mind alone.
So it only works if you notice the person is doing mirroring?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article/85_6-bullshit-facts-about-psychology-that-everyone-believes_p1
I wonder why it is so common for people to reverse the direction of
causality in so many things.
In the example in that page the most probable direction of cause and
consequence is, indeed, that success causes high self-esteem. However,
popular physchology has completely reversed this and claims that high
self-esteem causes success. If you think about it logically, it really
makes more sense in the former than the latter case.
This happens all the time, in all areas of life. Just as an example,
think about certain countries forcing democracy on other countries in
the hopes that democracy will bring peace to that country. Again, the
causality has been completely reversed here: It's not democracy which
brings peace. It's the other way around. You need peace *first*, and then
you might be able to build a democracy. It doesn't work in the other
direction.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You need peace *first*, and then you might be able to build a democracy. It doesn't
work in the other
> direction.
With one notable exception? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/25/09 10:17, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> I don't think the research is as categoric as he says. For example,
>> it's been shown that in marriages, if at least one spouse has a very
>> strong tendency to keep his irritation/anger hidden, the marriage is
>> more likely to end up in a divorce than in marriages where the couple
>> argues frequently.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but somehow the *former* sounds better than the latter.
>
> From the three possible options, keeping your anger in, which easily leads
> to the second option, divorcing, and the third option being constantly arguing,
> I would really prefer to end it if it just doesn't work. It makes no sense to
> be constantly arguing and it's not healthy.
In any marriage, you will have (valid) causes for arguments. My point
is that if you choose to let the small things slide most of the time,
it's more likely to result in a divorce.
If you, however, argue, it works out better in the long run. (To an
extent: If you just nitpick ceaselessly, that's probably not the best
thing to do).
You can't have a marriage where there won't be reasons to argue.
--
Feet Smell? Nose Run? Hey, you're upside down!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/25/09 11:19, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> You need peace *first*, and then you might be able to build a
>> democracy. It doesn't work in the other
>> direction.
>
> With one notable exception? :-)
The French don't count.
--
Feet Smell? Nose Run? Hey, you're upside down!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/25/09 11:19, Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> You need peace *first*, and then you might be able to build a
>>> democracy. It doesn't work in the other
>>> direction.
>>
>> With one notable exception? :-)
>
> The French don't count.
I was thinking the USA myself. As for the French, I don't know where civil
wars come into "peace first democracy later". :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> You can't have a marriage where there won't be reasons to argue.
Why not? Says who?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:27:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> You can't have a marriage where there won't be reasons to
>> argue.
>
> Why not? Says who?
In general, if you always agree on things all the time, no boundaries get
pushed, and that would make things (I imagine) quite dull.
Either that, or you end up with one person in the relationship always
setting the agenda, and the other becomes subservient. That's not
generally considered healthy.
Disagreement is a natural part of human existence.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Disagreement is a natural part of human existence.
I disagree! ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
