actually im not tryiing to convince anyone to but it, i have no intrest in sales whatsoever. i am debating the effects it has, so far the only arguement thus far is people's feeling on the matter, like the absurd claim of it being pseudoscience what the !@?* is that, i give solid facts and studies to back up my claims, you people bring nothing to contradict it. show me some proof your rebutles are valid. and by me quoting dr. giampa, if you read a few posts back you'll see that dr. giampa did use holosync for a study he conducted. but you prob. skipped over it, going on your own "feelings" on the matter. just anxious to spew your emotionall garbage that infects a decent post, and devoles it right back to the beging stages of the discussion. i thought this forum was for people of science attempting to evolve, with new ideas and look for new discoveries. not for the lazy, bitchy, parliament type, that need to be comforted by only that of what they know, scared of science being a "box of bloodthirsty maneating earwigs", what the @!#& is that bull!@#&. i obviously will not fit in with this bunch of self righteous, pretentious, snobs.SkinWalker said:Selfeducated1, you are handy with the copy/paste function of your computer... the original bibliography is here for others to see and read the context that these citations were referring to.
My question for selfeducated1 is this: the bibliography that centerpointe provides is nice though quite old, but where's the citations to the studies they've conducted on the methodology that they claim obtains the results they claim for the hefty price of $159 + s/h?
A hallmark of pseudoscience is the ability to astound the ignorant (often those that believe they are self-educated) with scientific sounding jargon and quotes all-the-while conning them out of their money. State governments do this every day with the lotto, otherwise known as the "tax on the ignorant," by making a display out of odds, statistics, etc. and then following up with catch-phrases like, "you gotta play to win."
I looked their website over and didn't see the link or citation to their peer-reviewed study. Perhaps you can enlighten us? I realize you're astounded by the literature they've cited, but their literature review is only part of the process of research. They still have to provide the methodology (which they barely outline) as well as the results of their studies. Citing "Dr. Giampa" doesn't do anything for us. There's no indication that he was using the $159 +s/h package for sale by centerpointe to get his results, right?
You haven't supplied data with regard to the $159 + s/h package, you've only copy/pasted the bibliography that centerpointe claims supports their $159 +s/h package. I'd like to see the peer-reviewed data of the $159 +s/h package, then we can talk about contradicting something.
what was unclearSoLiDUS said:It IS pseudoscience: you have not provided enough clear evidence for your position, hence why it was moved.
when others have already proven the effects of the different bwp why should that need reaffirming? dr. giampa did the study to show the effects holosync had on cortisol, DHEA, and melatonin, and bill harris did the studies to show that holosync did acctually induce beta-delta states, what more freaking evidence do you need? really im curious for as of late, there has been no refuting of facts other then the emotionall responses of what everybody feels. who cares what your feelings are on the matter. give me proof that your woe's are founded. other then it maybe full of maneating earwiggs.SoLiDUS said:It IS pseudoscience: you have not provided enough clear evidence for your position, hence why it was moved.
after reflecting, i realized something. i was the one who messed up on the thread in question. i worded it all wrong from the begining. i, in my error made the fatal mistake of making it sound like i had the answer. when i concede, that i don't. i would like to explain why i worded it that way.selfeducated1 said:when others have already proven the effects of the different bwp why should that need reaffirming? dr. giampa did the study to show the effects holosync had on cortisol, DHEA, and melatonin, and bill harris did the studies to show that holosync did acctually induce beta-delta states, what more freaking evidence do you need? really im curious for as of late, there has been no refuting of facts other then the emotionall responses of what everybody feels. who cares what your feelings are on the matter. give me proof that your woe's are founded. other then it maybe full of maneating earwiggs.
maybe eddisons lightbulb was a beackon in the night for the devil to guide his horde of demons through our city to devour the souls of the unwarry. get f***ing real.
thank you, really all i wanted from this was an intellectually stimulating conversation, not an emotionally stimulating one(thats why i got married )Agitprop said:Well I liked his post and my IQ is 165, not that it means anything. A great personality, which isn't factored into the intelligent quotient, takes terrific brain power. The need to have successful social relationships is the main driver of applicable intelligence in social animals.
As you can see by some of the reactions to your post, Self Educated 1, we have some socially retarded people here. Could they be hooked up to some machine to spur their social intelligence? And failing that, could they be hooked up to electrodes and shocked into proper etiquette?
BTW, I tried the hemi-sync Gateway program tapes. Profound effect. Wouldn't get that from effort alone. It's something the brain doesn't naturally do and can't be taught without the experience.
i dont believe i said it was genius in a bottle, if i implied that i'm sorry. i say the data they have on theta bwp, is that it is often associated with states of creativity, and increased memory, and problem solving, debunk it. also i have stated that delta is found to produce healing growth hormone, and access to unconcious mind, refute it, other then your emotionall stance on the matter.SoLiDUS said:Your position is that "holosync" is "genius in a bottle" ? Start a longitudinal study
backed up by a few psychometricians and come back with the results.
Physical changes of the kind described have yet to be associated with increased
intelligence and creativity, the trademarks of genius. You can provide us medical
reports all you want but they miss the point: we need psychometric data backed
up by real-life accomplishments worthy of the term used to sell the product.
That's all you will read from me in regards to this topic. Good luck with the promotion...
EDIT for clarification
audible said:and you would be right in america the average is 100, check the site out in my previous post (where it says see here) the world average is 140.
audible said:agitprop:as the world average is 140, and einsteins IQ was 161, everybody had to have known you were lying.
see here
anybody stating there IQ, just makes themself look like a jerk, as they cant prove it.
so can say anything