2 ms·
Quintessential example of the "Grifter" in action right here ("General Semanticists") Why are these people always flirting with psudoscientists and charlatans?
by Der_Einzige 2y ago
Quintessential example of the "Grifter" in action right here ("General Semanticists")
Why are these people always flirting with psudoscientists and charlatans?
Seriously? Why is this linking to Wilhelm Reich? Why does this look like some shit Lacan would have written? Why does this link to the devils NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming)
Why couldn't scientists in this era just stay in their fking lane and not say dumb shit?
I'm so tired of having to debunk yet another crack-pot stupid ideology from this era. This is psychoanalysis for the STEM-lord, and just as full of nonsense.
- PaulHoule 2y agoI have met a few of the luminaries of the third generation of "the devil's NLP" and I've learned enough speed hypnosis to call up people like that and get them to send me a free copy of their latest training materials but this does not help me with picking up girls. On one hand I am trained as a physicist and work as a computer programmer and have a lot of respect for arch-reductionists like Forester and Minsky but I also have an a schizotypal brain that causes me to have unusual experiences: I have a knack for dowsing rods, pendulums, ouija boards and the like even if I don't believe in them. Korzybski is an interesting case because you cannot get a good edition of his Science and Sanity so it is not possible to evaluate his work as a whole. I'd agree with L. Ron Hubbard (half jokingly) that Korzybski did not develop a workable system but Korzybski asked interesting questions and in some sense has less bullshit per mile than most approaches to getting more out of the human nervous system (e.g. I had a therapist who gave me CBT worksheets that Korzybski would have been giving out had he attained the "workable system")