lowtek
Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Interesting tangential discussion to be had, does something have to be scientific to be useful?
I would argue no. Utility and scientific truth are independent concepts. In fact, scientists routinely use incorrect mental models just to wrap their minds around something. The model of atoms as large balls in the middle with a bunch of smaller orbiting balls, kind of like a planetary system, is patently false. Yet it is incredibly useful in getting a feel for many physical phenomena. Atomic scattering and the transitions of electrons from one energy state to another can be easily understood within that (incorrect) mental model. The mental model has high utility, despite being quite low on the scale of objective reality.
When you read something, it should always be read critically. Yes, the idea that a person develops burn marks under hypnosis is most likely on shaky ground. I certainly wouldn't want to die on the hill of defending that.
That doesn't invalidate the idea that the power of belief is quite real. It's so real, in fact, that pharmaceutical drugs are measured relative to the success of a sugar pill with no other power than that of the belief of receiving legitimate medicine. So, belief in something is sufficient to get some kind of results, even if that something isn't objectively true.
Some here have stated that the book helped them immensely, and hordes of others have sworn by the utility of derivative works (Tony Robbins' tribe in particular). This leads me to believe it has utility, and shouldn't be discarded simply because it's not scientifically rigorous. If you read the book and believe the exercises are going to be helpful, then there is some good chance they will indeed be useful.
Of course, given the nature of placebo, it (the book and its ideas) may very well do nothing for you as well.
I would argue no. Utility and scientific truth are independent concepts. In fact, scientists routinely use incorrect mental models just to wrap their minds around something. The model of atoms as large balls in the middle with a bunch of smaller orbiting balls, kind of like a planetary system, is patently false. Yet it is incredibly useful in getting a feel for many physical phenomena. Atomic scattering and the transitions of electrons from one energy state to another can be easily understood within that (incorrect) mental model. The mental model has high utility, despite being quite low on the scale of objective reality.
When you read something, it should always be read critically. Yes, the idea that a person develops burn marks under hypnosis is most likely on shaky ground. I certainly wouldn't want to die on the hill of defending that.
That doesn't invalidate the idea that the power of belief is quite real. It's so real, in fact, that pharmaceutical drugs are measured relative to the success of a sugar pill with no other power than that of the belief of receiving legitimate medicine. So, belief in something is sufficient to get some kind of results, even if that something isn't objectively true.
Some here have stated that the book helped them immensely, and hordes of others have sworn by the utility of derivative works (Tony Robbins' tribe in particular). This leads me to believe it has utility, and shouldn't be discarded simply because it's not scientifically rigorous. If you read the book and believe the exercises are going to be helpful, then there is some good chance they will indeed be useful.
Of course, given the nature of placebo, it (the book and its ideas) may very well do nothing for you as well.