Psyconoclasm: Recent Comments

Comment on Episode 2: An Astrologer Critiques Science, with Dr. Glenn Perry

casino baccarat sur Internet — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:04:01 GMT

One of the reasons astrologers remain outside the establishment is to render greater service by detachment. They "oppose" the king, president and establishment in the sense that they are not under the direct power or authority of these entities and are expected to give a detached "outside" comment that can be really valuable because of its purity. Now, let's look at the second reason.

Comment on Follow-up to my interview with Dr. Jacobs

revue du casino virtuel — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:09:26 GMT

Jacobs believes that aliens are unable to reproduce themselves properly, so they are abducting our women and forcing them into a breeding programme intended to create human-alien hybrids who will eventually take over the world.
http://www.casinorevue.net

Comment on "Evidence of the Afterlife" can provide no such thing

Neuroskeptic — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:01:53 GMT

Good post. It sounds like an interesting book though, not as a guide to what happens after you die, but as data about a certain kind of experience which does seem to be quite common...

Comment on Episode 2: An Astrologer Critiques Science, with Dr. Glenn Perry

Julia — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:39:02 GMT

The question I want to hear answered by Dr. Perry, or anyone who says astrology works is what they mean by "work." What is it supposed to DO for you? What is the purpose of convincing people it is valid?

If you're life and personality are defined by the stars at your birth then there's nothing you can do about that! If they are trying to say that knowing who you are is a valuable tool in getting through life. Then I would agree and if some people find astrology a useful way to do that, then fine. But if it doesn't work for me, why try so hard to tell me it should?

If, just for arguments sake, I say astrology is valid, then what effect would that have on my behavior, etc.? (Except that I might go learn astrology and get my chart done). If there is no consensual consequence of deciding whether it's valid or not, then it's really more of a philosophical discussion than a debate about validity.

I'm almost 60 years old and having lived through the 60s and all the rest, I have had more than my share of exposure to (and experimentation with) astrology and other varieties of "alternative" schools of thought. When people ask me whether I believe (and that is the way the question is mostly phrased) in astrology. I answer that it is as valid as any of the myriad systems and languages humans have devised to articulate their subjective experience.

We humans have a deep impulse to articulate, to communicate to each other that which is internal and invisible. We want to feel like other peoples' experience has some relation to ours, that "we're all in this together" somehow, that we are connected and belong to the human family.

Astrology seems to be a very durable system for that expression. But it does not, and doesn't seem to be trying to, predict behavior or events. So there's no need to prove it. What I think is going on is that we live in a time when scientific proof holds tremendous value such that there is a great attraction to gain status by "proving" that which one finds important in one's life.

For whatever reason, Dr. Perry finds astrology meaningful. That's fine and we all have things that work that way for us, whether religion or philosophy, etc. Why he's trying to get it proven is more the question. Thanks again for your work!

Comment on Follow-up to my interview with Dr. Jacobs

Julia — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:53:03 GMT

Hi David, I'm glad to discover your podcast, have been a fan of Michael Britt's and David Van Nuys for a few months now and finally digging into some links. I wanted to add my take on this topic... The issue of proving or disproving is kind of not the point in my mind. People are free to, and will, continue to believe all kinds of things, whether that aliens do exist or not. You'll never get enough evidence to change beliefs. That's not how belief works. What can be debated and needs agreement on is so what do we, either as individuals or society DO if we believe one thing or the other. What is it that the alien abduction 'believers' think that other people should do or that society should do if what they say is true? What the non-believers say (most of whom have never even considered the question because it's so wacko - excuse my french) is do nothing. There is nothing that needs to be done in reference to these abductions. If what the abductees what is for others to believe their stories, they've got it! Other than that, they provide a wonderful laboratory, IMHO for studying psychological phenomena. It's kind of like when people ask me do I believe in god. My answer is that it's not whether one believes or not, but what does one mean when using that word. Obviously the word exists and it means something to a lot of people so it's not something that ceases to exist if one disbelieves in it. But what one means and why one believes and how that believe informs one's life is what is of interest and significance. But that's another topic. Thanks again and I'll keep listening. Oh, I did want to refer you to an interesting book that I think relates to this larger subject

Language and Self-Transformation: A Study of the Christian Conversion Narrative By Peter G. Stromberg

He's an anthropologist who's more recent and more popular book is Caught in Play. But I actually think this earlier book is more interesting in some ways. I think it offers an important perspective on how the stories people make of their experiences become meaningful to them and thus why they hold on to them so strongly. Cheers, Julia in Baltimore

Comment on Episode 1 Transcript

Angela Pratt — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:18:03 GMT

Hey David,

Try Dragon Naturally Speaking and a good recorder by Sony. You can record and transcribe yourself!!

Love the site!

Comment on Episode 1: The scientific approach to psychology, with Keith Stanovich, Ph.D.

jamie hale — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:01:57 GMT

Great interview. Stanovich's book How to Think Straight About Psychology is fabulous.

check out Stanovich at Pointofinquiry.org

I recently conducted an interview with Stanovich, that will appear on my site Knowledgesummit.net, in the near future. We discussed a few of the things mentioned in this interview.

jamie hale

Comment on Follow-up to my interview with Dr. Jacobs

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:20:28 GMT

Hi David. Thanks for the terrific podcast. I too have some problems with the work of Jacobs. However, if you get a chance you should look into the research done by Bill Chalker, particularly some DNA analysis done to a hair.

Comment on Episode 6: EMDR and the Military, with Cmdr. Mark Russell

David Van Nuys — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:48:54 GMT

I just got back from listening to the latest episode on EMDR on my walk. . David, you did a bang-up job of interviewing the Commander! I also started out as an EMDR skeptic. After the interview I did with founder, Dr. Francine Shapiro, on my WiseCounselPodcast.com, I felt open enough to it to recommend a family member see a local Shaprio-trained psychologist for an issue he was dealing with. He found it helpful.

I thought you did a great job of making it conversational and thoughtfully interesting with your own input. One direction I, personally, would have liked you to pursue is the experience of EMDR from the therapist's perspective. I'm imagining it as perhaps rather routine, mechanical, and eventually boring? How much room is there for the therapist's intuition, creativity, etc. Maybe this shouldn't be a criterion but, personally, I wouldn't want to do a boring, routine, repetitive job.

I'd love to hear you do a similar show on EFT, which I guess is one of those "energy" approaches that you rather summarily rejected. I was intrigued by the dual-attention hypothesis that the two of you discussed and it seems to me that could perhaps also explain the efficacy of EFT which so many practitioners tout. Superficially, EFT looks to me very much like EMDR except that instead of bi-lateral eye movement, the client is busy tapping on a series of acupuncture points. Even though the mechanism for acupuncture's effectiveness is controversial, I am under the impression that there is a good deal of scientific evidence supporting it's efficacy for a variety of complaints. I'm not convinced, however, that the acupuncture points being tapped in EFT are as important as the split-attention you two discussed.

You've got a great voice for radio/podcasting and a wonderful interviewing style. Definitely keep it up!

Comment on Episode 6: EMDR and the Military, with Cmdr. Mark Russell

Venom — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:00:54 GMT

Hello,

Thanks for plugging my podcast at the end of your show.

By the way, I never asked you to quit - or stop - doing your podcast. Maybe just to do (a lot) more mainstream psychology and (a lot) less fringe claims. But I don't remembre even saying that...

Your podcast is really not what I hoped it would be after the first interview. And also you shouldn't have promoted it on the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe forum under the title "New skeptical psychology podcast".

I get it now: it's not a skeptical look at psychology, but a podcast about fringe and controversial claims in psychology. Not at all the same thing...

If being a "nasty skeptic" is not being happy with you promoting astrology as science and ufologist alien abduction claims in an uncritical fashion, then yeah, I'm a "nasty skeptic". The only thing is that me I call that simply being a skeptic.

I love psychology and good science. It's fun to listen to fringe claims, but it's really not what I was hopping for.

Take care,

ps: I hope you'll have an interview with someone skeptical about EMDR in the futur, and - let's be wild - maybe an interview about the very mainstream behavioral-cognitive psychotherapy...