The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » SAR by Kenton Knepper (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
IanBrodie
View Profile
Regular user
147 Posts

Profile of IanBrodie
Nickelsun

Thanks for the afvice. I have to admit I'm not a fan of Myers Briggs (or any Freudian/Jungian derived work). I think nowadays the Big 5 traits (Extraversion/Surgency, Agreeableness,Conscientiousness,Emotial Stability,Intellect/Openness) - as served by the NEO-P-IR or IPIP inventories - are generally viewed as a better collection of descriptiors for personality than the Myers-Briggs set. I used to work with Myers-Briggs about 5 years ago, but found myself agreeing with much of the criticism about it.

Rgds,

Ian

(Also not an NLP proponent - but let's not get into that argument!!)
Tony Razzano
View Profile
Inner circle
South River, NJ
1601 Posts

Profile of Tony Razzano
Ian,
SAR is very strong. I bought the original one seceral years ago and I have been accepted among professional counsellors with advanced degrees ( I have an advanced degree, but not as a councellor).

It will sell to corporate audiences quite well for what it is...subconscious analysis and response. You don't need to know Myers-Briggs, Jung,etc at all to do this system.

Bottom line is that is strong, helps clients and is accepted in the professional and corporate world.

Brandon suggests graphology. I agree that graphology works well in the corporate arena as well. One has nothing to do with the other and either is a good choice. One might argue that we write the way we do as dictated by out subconscious, and maybe reasonably so. But there is no need to go into that with the clients.

SAR is not a psychic reading. It is what it purports to be..a way to reprogram the subconscious of the client and is based in sound psychological principals.

Since graphology and subconscious response are both acceptable sciences, they are accepted by the corporate world.

If you wish to use either to do "psychic" readings, you can. I just feel that there is no need to. They both stand on their own merits.


best regards,
Tony Razzano
Best regards,
<BR>Tony Razzano, Past President, PEA
Winner of the PEA"s Bascom Jones and Bob Haines Awards
A l a i n B e ll o n
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of A l a i n B e ll o n
Quote:
Since graphology and subconscious response are both acceptable sciences, they are accepted by the corporate world.


Since when graphology and subconscious response are acceptable sciences? Some aspects of subconscious phenomena has been validated, but graphology is what one may refer to as a "naive" theory. Smile
IanBrodie
View Profile
Regular user
147 Posts

Profile of IanBrodie
Graphology is relatively well accepted in France for some reason and is often used as part of employee selection. I was very suprised by this when I worked there, but it almost seemed part of the mainstream.

Ian
Xiqual
View Profile
Inner circle
Upper left quadrant
4934 Posts

Profile of Xiqual
Let's not forget that psychology is a psuedo- science.
Cheers,
James




Quote:
On 2003-05-09 13:55, Alain Bellon wrote:
Quote:
Since graphology and subconscious response are both acceptable sciences, they are accepted by the corporate world.


Since when graphology and subconscious response are acceptable sciences? Some aspects of subconscious phenomena has been validated, but graphology is what one may refer to as a "naive" theory. Smile


Still with the Chinese circus Smile
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
"naive" theory or not isn't the issue. The issue is how the audience percieve what your doing.I have had really strong skeptics beleive that palm reading is authentic.
Tony Razzano
View Profile
Inner circle
South River, NJ
1601 Posts

Profile of Tony Razzano
The testimony of graphologists and psychologists are accepted in court as expert testimony, in US Courts, anyway. Cases have been won and lost on these testimonies.
Now if you want to argue with the judges, knock yourselves out.

So much for the naive theory.


People in the corporate world know this and accept them as well.

YOU may not accept them or like it, but I don't perform for you. Legal and corporate America sanctions them, and they pay me for it. And as long as the corporate world perceives graphology and psychology as legitimate sciences, they accept them... Never had a problem with them.


Oh and one more thing...corporate human resoruces departments sometimes rely on graphologists to help decide which applicant to hire.

best regards,
Tony Razzano
Best regards,
<BR>Tony Razzano, Past President, PEA
Winner of the PEA"s Bascom Jones and Bob Haines Awards
Milgram
View Profile
New user
1 Post

Profile of Milgram
James

Modern psychology is not a psuedo-science. Psychology is currently defined by both the British psychological society (BPS) and the the American psychological association (APA) as the scientific study of mind and behaviour (2003). Modern psychological assessmnet and psychotherapy is based on a sound body of empirical research. That means they are the result of scientific research that is both valid, reliable and repeatable. To further expand, any psychological interventions have to accredited by a committee of experts who review (scientifically)how effective that intervention is. Any test/intervention has to be found to be consitant and reliable at least 95% of the time to even be considered for accreditation. Only when an such an intervention finally gets its accreditation is it allowed to be used by trained psychologists on the public (In Britain anyway).Psycholgy is no longer based on subjective opinion as in Freuds day. Today anything that psycholgy / psycholoists say has to the be the result of proper research and as a result our opinions can be cited as expert evidence in a court of law because we can back up every thing we say.

Hope that clears things up

S Milgram
A l a i n B e ll o n
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of A l a i n B e ll o n
What makes something a science or not has nothing to do with courts or human laws or opinions. It's pretty simple, if it adheres to the scientific method it is a science, if not then no.

All the judges in the world may accept graphological personality assesement and it still would not be a science. It really is not up for the judges to decide.

Now, lets also separate psychological assesement graphology from the kind of graphology that is used to verify signatures or if writing belongs to a given person or not. The second type uses scientific methodology.

So it really has nothing to do with whether it is used by courts or by corporations. It may be accepted but that does not make it science.

The term naive theory is not used in a derogatory way, it is a common term that, at least here, is used to refer to theories without strict scientific foundation.

Psycology, on the other hand, follows the scientific method in principle. But it is really hard to do it in practice.

Tony, don't take my words as an attack. Sometimes it is hard to convey tone in this medium.

Well said Mr. Milgram. And it is important to differentiate the real psychology you speak about from the common notion of psychology as evangelized by corporate people. I have nothing against corporate ideas, but it is important to make the distinction.

PS. You name sends shivers down my spine... or is it electric shocks?
Bill Hallahan
View Profile
Inner circle
New Hampshire
3223 Posts

Profile of Bill Hallahan
Psychology is a statistical science. Many, perhaps most, of the experiments that would test hypothesises are unethical. So the data is empirical from existing cases, and studies are done of treatments in a controlled fashion. But it does qualify as a science, just not a pure science. But this is a semantic argument.

The most accurate statement that can be made about the human mind is that nobody has any idea exactly how it works. Much is known about neuro-chemical reactions, sensory processing, and some basic brain architecture. There are even several theories of consciousness circulating. And while it is true that human behavior has been studied, and can even be fairly reliably predicted in some controlled situations, the truth is that our understanding of the brain is in its infancy. No doubt future generations will regard our understanding of the human brain to be only marginally better than Freud’s understanding. Note that in every decade, psychology has changed, even in the last decade. To that extent, I agree with Xiqual
when he writes, "Let's not forget that psychology is a psuedo-science."

However, behavior that has been studied can be predicted. Not reliably, but in a statistical sense. That is still quite useful.

I thought the post about Graphology being used in France for employee selection was interesting. I am skeptical that graphology has any real value in determining what matters for a good employee.

Note that here in the United States, people who take management courses often give people what is called the "Myers Briggs" test. It is not used to select or reject people, but to determine people preferences in dealing with situations and people. You are categorized in 4 categories, i.e. (1) Extroversion / Introversion; (2) Sensing Intuition; (3) Thinking / Feeling; (4) Judgement / Perception; There is no correct result for this test, rather it measures differences between people.

BTW, my degree is in Electrical Engineering, not in psychology. But I have read everything on this topic I could lay my hands on since I got out of school. Like every generation of engineers, I dream of making a brain, but like every engineer so far, I have absolutely no idea how to do it.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch"
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
Making a brain is one thing...fusing it with life force is another. That's where much research falls down. Most of the basis of medical research has been carried out by disecting dead bodies. The intelligent life force has gone by then.

Controlled experiments on subjects like ESP can be lnfluenced by the beliefs and expectations of the psychologists conducting the experiments even when outwardly they appear to have the same test conditions.
IanBrodie
View Profile
Regular user
147 Posts

Profile of IanBrodie
Psychology is - supposed - to be scientific, but I think it's fair to say that much of what is believed by the public to be psychology is actually pseudoscience (Freudian analysis for example) and this perception is not helped by programmes like Frasier (funny though it is) which paint a picture of modern psychologists using primarily Freudian techniques.

Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, there is also a lot of rubbish practiced in the name of psychology - particularly in courts where psychologists who should know better make character assesments and judgements with much more implied accuracy than could ever be justified by the evidence.

It's been a good few years since I read it, but Robin Dawes book "House of Cards" is an excellent guide to what can and can't reasonably be achieved with proven psychological methods - and some of the nonsense that goes on under the name of psychology. (Interesting finding for example - by and large after basic therapy training, there is no evidence to suggest that years of experience in practice has any positive impact on the success of therapy. A local counsellor who has been trained for a few weeks in basic techniques seems to be just as effective as a Harley Street expert who you pay a fortune too).

But now I think we're drifting off-topic away from mentalism somewhat!

Rgds,

Ian

PS I find the French situation interesting too. A number of well-educated people I spoke to over there have been brought up to believe that graphology can somehow identify elements of personality and should be used to guide selection. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support this (I'm talking here of graphology used to assess personality, not its use to identify people or other valid uses). Although everyone is entitled to their own peculiar beliefs - myself included of course - it was strange that there was such a belief in graphology across the board.
Nickelsun
View Profile
New user
7 Posts

Profile of Nickelsun
Ian

I share your doubts about the usefulness of Myers-Briggs as a useful psychological tool, except to encourage people to think about their own behaviour and it's impact on those around them. However, for providing cold reading material and an approach I think it's rather good.

Nickelsun
Creativity is THINKING up new things, innovation is DOING new things
IanBrodie
View Profile
Regular user
147 Posts

Profile of IanBrodie
Nickelsun,

I guess that's my dilemma at the moment.

There are lots of "things" which would work well as cover or a premise for mentalism/readings (Myers-Briggs et al.) but that don't hold much water as actual psychological diagnostics/therapies (or at least there are much better alternatives).

I seem to be looking for the holy grail of something which provides a good premise that is actually also a good psychological diagnostic/therapy in the first place.

Maybe that's asking for too much though!

Ian
Bambaladam
View Profile
Special user
636 Posts

Profile of Bambaladam
Quote:
On 2003-05-12 04:02, IanBrodie wrote:
I seem to be looking for the holy grail of something which provides a good premise that is actually also a good psychological diagnostic/therapy in the first place.

Maybe that's asking for too much though!

Ian


Years of experience giving readings?

/Bamba
IanBrodie
View Profile
Regular user
147 Posts

Profile of IanBrodie
Quote:
On 2003-05-12 04:32, Bambaladam wrote:
Quote:
On 2003-05-12 04:02, IanBrodie wrote:
I seem to be looking for the holy grail of something which provides a good premise that is actually also a good psyhcological diagnostic/therapy in the first place.

Maybe that's asking for to much though!

Ian


Years of experience giving readings?

/Bamba


Yeah - if only I could find a way of getting those years of experience in a few weeks Smile

Ian
chmara
View Profile
Inner circle
Tucson, AZ
1904 Posts

Profile of chmara
Back to the initial question anyone?

I have had SAR and used it well as an adjunct to readings. People who seek out readings often face problems not of a clinical psychological nature -- but in a need to change behavior -- the behavior of how to make critical decisions.

Having worked with Skinner's approaches in residential settings for the profoundly distrubed or out-of-step, worked with transactional (tending toward rational/emotive) therapies in conjunction with drug therapies for ADD, depression and some obsessive behaviors, AND HAVING WORKED WITH TAROT, COLD READING, RUNES, AND SAR -- I have found that SAR actually is a good tool to use for shut-eye "true believers" to start a journey of change to some acceptance of the more practical/rational sides of "spiritual guidance."

SAR has its place, not in the work of magicians, or psychologists, but in the domain of open-eye readers, as opposed to mentalists who may do readings. Most open-eye workers knmow when someone is facing a crisis that they need to feel empowered to make a decision to change-- even one little successful step. That step may be approached by the opening SAR gives us as a tool.

This, my collegues, friends and critics, is not just show business for the eyes, but designed for more the mental catharsis found in drama (Death of a Salesman, Long Day's Journey Into Night) or in the more Freudian aspects of Cirque du Soleil, with the added touch of success at the end.

As I was duplicating forms from my original set today for tommorow's work -- I was thinking that some work (just for fun, of course) could be done in making up a parallel mentalism test - to test the volunteers ESP in depth and let them give YOU a reading of themselves OR you?

SAR ROCKS. Tank and Kemper have made a tool to bridge the work of shut-eye psychics and open eyed readers -- with as much possible validity as reading thumbprints (see Blackhart) or early handwriting analysis -- before any statistical validty was generated for SOME aspects of Grapho-Analysis in criminology. Even palm reading CAN be validated when certain heriditary diseases can be found by the abscence of certain line formations on hands -- or marks under finger nails.

Gregg Chmara
Tucson, AZ

PS - I wish Kenton would weigh in on this!!! His disclaimers and manuals are pretty clear as to the design and uses proposed for the work.
Smile
Gregg (C. H. Mara) Chmara

Commercial Operations, LLC

Tucson, AZ



C. H. Mara Illusion & Psychic Entertainments
mindmagic
View Profile
Inner circle
London
1553 Posts

Profile of mindmagic
Hi Gregg

Thanks for getting back to the topic under discussion!

I'm thinking of getting SAR - partly to do readings if I ever become a professional mentalist, and partly as an extra tool for my hypnotherapy practice. I'd be interested to hear more about Kenton's disclaimers and intended uses.

Barry Cooper
London, UK
Bambaladam
View Profile
Special user
636 Posts

Profile of Bambaladam
Quote:
On 2003-05-12 15:02, IanBrodie wrote:
Yeah - if only I could find a way of getting those years of experience in a few weeks Smile


If you use SAR the right way, you will come frighteningly close to creating the illusion of having just that.

Really, whether or not you "believe" the underlying thought, this reading system is as good as anything could be for readings in the psychological context. It isn't random mumbo jumbo.

I think you are focusing too much on belief in the power of something before you try it as opposed to discovering the power by trying.

No reading system is impressive before it is used.

/bamba
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
Quote:
On 2003-05-14 11:24, Bambaladam wrote:
the power by trying.

No reading system is impressive before it is used.

/bamba


So True!!
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » SAR by Kenton Knepper (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL