Quote:

---

This is why so many of these people do not want anyone to question the golden-goose that is no-touch.

---

Outstanding, Darren. If they aren't interested in the science, then it MUST be the money. Sad.

geez, you may have to go on a government witness protection program...

keep safe.

dazzacarmichael


Its even worse than that.

Its hugely financially stupid NOT to take Randi's challange--if somebody really thinks they can pull it off that is.

The potential rewards of being able to do the whole NTKO thing in a lab far outweigh any potential financial losses--again, IF somebody can really do it.

Having a lab certified test would enable you to triple (at least) your fees and number of seminars--as well as putting almost everyone else--those without such lab certified test-- out of business--thus giving you a near monoploy on the NTKO thing.

You could set your OWN price and have as many seminars as you wanted.

Since somebody that can really do NTKO has everything to gain and nothing to lose by stepping up and taking the Randi challange NOT doing so demands some pretty heavy duty reasons why they don't.

Again, IF they can really do it........or did just answer my own question.

On a more serious note, as one of my buddies that does Tai Chi once put it, (my paraphrase)

"Its not really a question of spooky abilties, pretty much everyone that has trained long enough has seen and even done some weird things, its really a question of reliabilty and consistant performence--can you count on it whenever you need it?
Can you call up the "force" whenever and where-ever its required on whomever your facing?
Can you reliably count on its effects? Say the way you can count on a the effects of a really good uppercut?

(and even that does not work all the time)

How that question is personally answered matters.

I think it was Pan Quin Fu (something like that) that once quiped:

"if those old masters could really jump 30 feet then why did they have stairs in their houses?"

I don't think anyone actually has anwered that mainly rhetorical question.

I find it interesting that the "chi" theories are all bunk (according to the "scientists" among us), but the ideomotor effects are "science"... when everything I could find on it clearly said it was a "psychological theory". If I use chi to create a physical effect, it's bunk... but if you explain it with a psychological theory , it's automatically scientific proof .

I was born at night, but it wasn't last night... and this whole "ideomotor effect" is no more scientific than the ouiji boards they're claiming to be in control of operating.
Where are all the "double blind" tests of this? I read that there were plenty of "hypnotic suggestions" that could cause ideomotor movements, but nobody is claiming to hypnotize anyone using chi...

Bull$*** is bull$***... and the ideomotor " $cientific explanation " is probably a good method to get grant money to "document the ideomotor effect" and write a psychological paper to have the nitwits in the "psychology profession (and I'm being generous there)" explain something they can't see or touch or define.

Sigmund Fraud would be proud of this explanation ...


This thread hit a 6 on my B-S meter...

Going off track a little here guys..I know I no longer mod this section of the forum but Underdog does and this subject makes her very "Lock Button" happy as it can rapidly spin into a pointless thread. Whilst we have the pleasure of Darren's attention please let's keep this relevant to his article and not get this one locked down!

Maybe I missed something, but Ed puports that since there ia no "scientific evidence" of chi, that it's bunk. In the same breath, he puports that "ideomotor effects" are "science", while the google-fu sources all say that it's a psychological theory.

Maybe we should just all join the flat earth society and stop using anything that we can't explain adequately. I'm the first guy to admit that a lot of things that are attributed to chi are actually body mechanics, but that fact doesn't necessarily negate everything else about it... and just because "scientists" can cause ideomotor effects from hypnosis doesn't mean that it's the answer to all things unexplainable in human contact and movement either.

Like everything psychologists and psychiatrists do, they start with the answer, and craft the arguments to match their findings by making everything else "bunk". I've had a number of friends in the psychology field over the years, and they've never met anyone that their first approach wasn't "you need to restructure your life"... Of course, it was to fit "their model" of how you should live... so I don't necessarily fall off the wagon every time some psychology wonk tells me about the "science" of theoretical arguments. One of my karate teachers was a psychologist, and I found out that I was "one of his projects". He got pi$$ed when I refused to alter my behavior to fit his "model" just so he could present his thesis, so don't tell me about how "scientific" these guys are. They think everybody they meet are their toys, and they can play with them any way they like...

His "theory" was that you could take "traditional trained karate people" and turn them into more "progressive" martial artists by trying to "un-do" their training. In my case, he was wrong... and just for the record, he would join any martial arts association that passed through town just to get another certificate to hang on the wall. He was obsessed with having his picture with "so and so" hanging on the wall, and his dojo was like trying to workout inside a photo album. He almost had a stroke when he asked me to start teaching jujutsu for him, and I came in and took all his pictures down and boxed them up.

I'm all for scientific proof, Ed, but let's not expose the thread participants to "psychological theories" as scientific proof of anything. It may be true, it might not... just like chi... but it sure isn't "science" at the same standard you pull out like a gun on anything you can't explain.

I asked the author a question. you extrapolated the rest.

congratualations though, you're doing a good job of giving an excuse to getting the thread locked...which is what many people would like, I'm sure.


To Darren, the author of the article: Have you received 'backlash' as a result of this article? Thanks.

With the interest in science expressed, does it at all matter that Darren has not done a hyno way NTKO? With all the respect I have for Darren for sharing information with me, this one stickler point bothers me. I'm actually surprised that no one else has even asked. Just curious, has ANYONE done a hypno way NTKO and if so, could you post a clip?

I won't lock the thread as long as it is respectful. I just don't like being insulted in a way that excedes disagreement and becomes ridicule. I'll accept as a given that people disagree with me and I have no desire to pursuade anyone. Don't need to.

This is a pretty elite group of discussants. I don't need to interfere. I may light touch with my magic mod mouse if we get infiltrated by 12 year olds who want to throw chi balls at their cats. Enjoy. I owe it to Darren to let him have unimpeded forum access that he would have difficulty having on Kyushospace and with an audience that genuinely wants to discuss his ideas.

Can someone clarify how there is more than one way to NTKO? What is the difference between hypno NTKO and anything else? The implication seems to be that one will work, but not the other. My understanding is that none of them will work.