Psychic ability in the workplace

[Grantywanty]

I have often wondered about using psychic ability within the workplace. It is my belief that with such an ability it is promoted to the wider public as a source of information on choosing the right direction in life to take. You would agree that a psychic reading is a positive experience for the client as they are generally told of forthcomings that are to be in their favor such as money, luck and love interests. This being the case why can't we take such a talent into the workplace where we would foresee such things as conflict, relationship issues both good and bad. It is knowing that our colleagues have a good and bad day, might say a curt word here or there that we understand the workplace relations and not take everything said to heart. Maybe this is an area of promotion with a client such as reassuring them that they are well like and respected within the workplace and an asset to the team. I would think this would do a lot for a persons self esteem and confidence. After all, isn't this ability we promote to be for the betterment of our clients friends and acquaintances? psychic-aus.com has articles on this very subject.

I am sure one could do this. I am not sure about it as a preventative tactic. though there are others who would. In other words I might want to know afterwards, to help me understand what I had experienced earlier. But to know in advance seems to me to leave my intuition untested. Can I pick up the vibe of a certain worker or my boss? etc. In other words it seems like it might be replacing intuition and psychic ability in others rather than giving them a way to develop their own through their work experiences.

But that's just me. I find the whole find out about the future frightening. My wife finds it inspiring.

 

[Grantywanty]

I'm not trying to attack you Brent. I am trying to show Skin that your value system might be a necessary step to fully function in society given your 'experiences'.

You have got to be kidding. Do you have so little psychological insight. or tact. Or social skills.

Condescension always conceals aggression.

Reread your own contribution to the discussion and imagine someone was talking in front of you in the third person about your stage in some process and comparing you to Schizophrenics.

If you can't see how that might be rude or an attack, you really aren't someone with enough psychological insight to mediate tensions between other people.

 

[Grantywanty]

This is the pseudoscience section of a science board, friend. It's here that we discuss the impact of pseudoscience on science and education in modern society. It isn't an open invitation for nutters to come and toss about their wild claims and get pats on the back.

If this were true than the moderators should have the courage to put religion and probably much of philosophy in pseudoscience also.

And to the Buddhist, who find Western notions of Selfhood a fantasy, more portions of the boards should go in here also. I mean the whole idea of a self that continues through time, that doesn't fit well with modern science. Just another folk belief, but one that is politically correct here. (I actually believe in selves, I just wanted to point out the contradiction. Most skeptics are quite happy with their own folk beliefs, just are bothered by ones that are not accepted in their circles. Not to speak of how many skeptic voted for Bush or believed the war in Iraq is over WMD or freeing the Iraqi people. Sure, many believers fell for all that BS too. It just seems like when something really matters 'skeptics' are just as gullible as anyone else.)

Last point: you think the pseudoscience forum serves a certain purpose. But amazingly enough there may not be consensus on that. You could start a thread or new ones on the TOPICS YOU THINK SHOULD BE THE FOCUS HERE.

Or you could do a little introspection and find out why you really act the way you act.

 

[phlogistician]

If this were true than the moderators should have the courage to put religion and probably much of philosophy in pseudoscience also.

Er, no, that's why we have 'Religion' and 'Philosophy' sections, so they don't clutter up pseudoscience. It's not a catch-all section.

 

[SkinWalker]

See. The rationally minded haven't posted in a while and the kooks and woo-woos are coming out again. I think we need to get together and make some threads about pseudoscience: exposing nutters, posting on news in exposing woo-woo ideas, deconstructing pseudoscientific claims, and the like.

Otherwise, the nutters and woo-woos will be googling for "science" boards friendly to their wacky ideas and happen upon sciforums. They'll post and they'll be pounced on by the reality-based members that still lurk. We should give them fair warning.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You have my vote for a 'Delusion' subforum... right next to the cesspool

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You have got to be kidding. Do you have so little psychological insight. or tact. Or social skills.

Expect people on the forum to tear ideas and 'evidence' apart. If you submit your own perception as evidence then it is foolish to believe that your experiences will be magically protected from scrutiny.

Condescension always conceals aggression.

Interpretation always conceals bias.

Reread your own contribution to the discussion and imagine someone was talking in front of you in the third person about your stage in some process and comparing you to Schizophrenics.

If you can't see how that might be rude or an attack, you really aren't someone with enough psychological insight to mediate tensions between other people.

Um... I am not sure where I explicitly stated that it was my intention to mediate tensions between other people. Could you point that out for me?

 

[Tnerb]

Skinwalker i'm starting to think you really are a historian. You know, they only talk about the past, and that's all they really are, .............. past.

Besides that, I PM'd stryder, and, until he pms me back, i'll have no further discussions with those "discussing"