proof

[jimshu]

Proving a claim can be more important in what it does implicitly - lends, or detracts from the credibility of the claimant. In rhetoric, as taught by Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion: appeal to reason, appeal to emotions, and the ethical appeal (of the persuader). I see the first two being used quite a bit in Steve's writings, but with regard to the third, just a lot of unsubstantiated claims. If the argument you're compelled to use after that statement is that he's not trying to "persuade", I would strongly disagree.

By the way, I'm not just your average skeptic and naysayer that got himself in the forums to blast Steve. As I mentioned in another post, I've read the book and think it's innovative, with terrific advice, that I will probably spend a life time gleaning to my advantage. And I'm actually quite open to a lot of things. For instance: His [and his wife's claims] of astral projection and demons, although I find highly unlikely as it defies logic for much of the same reasoning Steve rejects religion (as have I) I do not reject outright. Although it sounds silly and farfetched to me, I don't have all the answers, especially when it comes to the after-life. And then, with regard to the universal and irreducible principles of truth, love and power, I want to believe they are what he claims, and in the genius that elicited them; but here more than anywhere I need to find Steve credible – specifically his character, and intellectual abilities.

Steve, I would feel a lot better about you and your philosophy if I could see transcripts of your academic accomplishments at CSUN.

[carenkh]

Here's a thread you might find helpful.

I doubted but ...

[jimshu]

thanks - not bad, but not good enough. i'm still forced to take someone's word for it in that thread.

i could call csun - maybe i will. but why not just post the transcripts? that would satisfy me. i don't need to see how much money he makes - anybody in this country can make a lot of money if they're ambitious enough, or if he can float around on other planes. i just want to believe he has the intellectual capacity that in my mind would validate his theories; and that he's honest.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by jimshu

Steve, I would feel a lot better about you and your philosophy if I could see transcripts of your academic accomplishments at CSUN.

Why does it matter? Logically speaking, even if Steve didn't graduate college at all, it doesn't change his message.

Besides, transcripts are easily forged. No matter what Steve does, you need to have some level of trust in him.

[Savage]

If you want to assess someone's character, go meet them face to face and get to know them. Anything less will leave too much room for doubt.

In any event, if you wish to see objective proof of anything I've written about, then I would first like to see proof that you aren't merely a figment of my imagination. If you can't do that to my satisfaction, then I can't see the point in proving something to a figment.

[andreelerowes]

All a college transcript will tell you are grades. Grades are not necessarily an indication of higher reasoning capabilities. I've been reading a lot of dissertations lately, and the quality is disappointingly low: plagiarism, meaningless drivel, useless filler. But they've got their doctorate degree in hand, now don't they?

If you can't glean Steve's intellectual abilities from the quality of his writing, what's knowing that he got an A in calculus going to tell you that you're unable to figure out for yourself?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by andreelerowes

If you can't glean Steve's intellectual abilities from the quality of his writing, what's knowing that he got an A in calculus going to tell you that you're unable to figure out for yourself?

Hey, I got an A+ in calculus.

[Daffy Duck]

I really think colleges should drop the letter grading and go back to happy/neutral/sad faces.

[Plato]

No Daffy. That would never work. Employers need a serious way to distinguish the well trained slaves from the lazy and broken ones.

[Daffy Duck]

Okay... so don't hire the sad faces!

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Okay... so don't hire the sad faces!

I just worry they won't be good slaves it it's measured in faces. Faces are too obviously subjective. Numeric values bear more resemblance to an objective measure of "Good"

[jimshu]

this is about credibility. you're the one that uses it to establish your credibility - at the beginning of your book. but you stop short in that process, by not providing proof. we're just supposed to take your word for it. why make the claim if your words alone should suffice? as for your argument of me being a figment, and the impractical and not necessarily effectual [in establishing credibility] "me meeting you face-to-face and getting to know you" - both red herrings. by the way, i would like to get to know you if the claims in question are true.

and as i indicated before there is quality in what you write and much of it has had a huge impact on my thinking, but there is contradiction.

here's my problem: since so much of your words sound "right", and quite profound, when i come across something that doesn't sound "right", I have to make a decision. should i trust my instincts or his? as i have doubts as to whether or not my instincts have served me well to this point [in life], i strongly consider trusting someone elses - in this case yours. in order to make that leap of faith, i need to believe in your integrity. and you've made some extravagant claims to bolster your credibility, but refuse to back them up.

[Erin Pavlina]

You should always trust your own instincts and develop your own beliefs. Use experts as a source of information that you explore on your own. Like a tour guide walking you through a museum, explaining the art on the walls; but you must decide whether you like the art or not. If someone said, "This piece of art is considered the most beautiful and profound painting in the world" that doesn't make it true for you.

When you resonate with something Steve says, incorporate it into your life. When you don't, discard it. You don't have to accept the whole package.

For myself, I present what I believe to be true based on my own personal experiences. Like you, I could never accept the validity of something without first experiencing it on my own. That's how it should be (in my opinion). I use experts to point the way, but the actual exploration I leave up to myself.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jimshu

this is about credibility. you're the one that uses it to establish your credibility - at the beginning of your book. but you stop short in that process, by not providing proof.

What proof is required for living one's own life? I began my book with my personal story, which seemed a good fit for a book about personal growth. Do I have to prove my own experiences to others? That would be silly and ridiculous. And given the number stories I've shared, it would be endless too.

You assume that I care about my reputation/credibility. I don't. Those things exist in the minds of others and are outside my bailiwick. I don't seek to control what you think of me. I'm much more concerned with what I think of me.

If you don't believe one or more of my stories, how is that my problem? You are trying to reverse-delegate one of your problems to me, and I'm declining your offer. Your personal doubt is your challenge to deal with, not mine. Please don't try to foist that assignment onto me.

If you think it will help you, go ahead and assume I'm lying or that I possess some ulterior motive beyond helping people grow. See if that helps you on your path of growth. Maybe it will help you discover your own inner authority.

[jimshu]

with regard to trusting your instincts, anytime anyone gives you advice they are indirectly asking you to trust their instincts.

well, my instincts are telling me to find out if this guy's for real. they would tell me something different if he would substantiate his claims.

you know the messianic parallels here between him and jesus and christianity are remarkable. this ostensibly extraordinary human being, who is also a man of the people (issues with stealing - truth??) asks you to believe and not question him, or use your intellect. oh, and refuses to prove anything.

[Erin Pavlina]

That's not at all what's happening here. That's what's happening in your own mind.

When someone gives you advice they are sharing the results of thier own experience. Your experience may vary. how could two people have the exact same experience anyway?

Steve's whole focus is to help people think for themselves, not to swallow what he says without testing it for yourself. He asks people to live consciously, he does not tell them what to think, only that they should be thinking for themselves. Authority. Inner authority. Find your own path.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by jimshu

with regard to trusting your instincts, anytime anyone gives you advice they are indirectly asking you to trust their instincts.

well, my instincts are telling me to find out if this guy's for real. they would tell me something different if he would substantiate his claims.

you know the messianic parallels here between him and jesus and christianity are remarkable. this ostensibly extraordinary human being, who is also a man of the people (issues with stealing - truth??) asks you to believe and not question him, or use your intellect. oh, and refuses to prove anything.

Ironically what we judge others for are the same things we are doing ourselves =/. (a good percentage of the time)

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Plato

I just worry they won't be good slaves it it's measured in faces. Faces are too obviously subjective. Numeric values bear more resemblance to an objective measure of "Good"

Ah Fraser, animals communicate quite clearly with their faces. Surely we can.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You assume that I care about my reputation/credibility. I don't. Those things exist in the minds of others and are outside my bailiwick. I don't seek to control what you think of me. I'm much more concerned with what I think of me.

If you don't believe one or more of my stories, how is that my problem? You are trying to reverse-delegate one of your problems to me, and I'm declining your offer. Your personal doubt is your challenge to deal with, not mine. Please don't try to foist that assignment onto me.

Pardon me if this is TMI or inappropriate, but I wish I had female reproductive organs so that I could bear a child fathered by Steve Pavlina. What I'm trying to convey is just how wonderfully awesome his mind is.

I was talking to one of my friends on our local mountain the other day, and we came to an agreement: you either get it or you don't. Steve doesn't buy into ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mainstream thought. He thinks for himself. He's not trapped into Aristotle's way of thinking about the world.

You either rise above the language games, or you're trapped by them. Steve has obviously freed his mind from Aristotle's limiting logic (although he doesn't appear to have done this consciously, correct me if I'm wrong Steve).

If you want to read further (and Steve I HIGHLY recommend this book for you), read "People in Quandaries". He covers, in intimate detail, the way the Greek philosophers enslaved the Western mind for over 2000 years, and how this trend still continues today.

Our society is stark-raving mad because of it. A few of us escape into the world of free thought. It's really an existential matter - do you take the red pill or the blue one?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by jimshu

Proving a claim can be more important in what it does implicitly - lends, or detracts from the credibility of the claimant. In rhetoric, as taught by Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion: appeal to reason, appeal to emotions, and the ethical appeal (of the persuader). I see the first two being used quite a bit in Steve's writings, but with regard to the third, just a lot of unsubstantiated claims. If the argument you're compelled to use after that statement is that he's not trying to "persuade", I would strongly disagree.

By the way, I'm not just your average skeptic and naysayer that got himself in the forums to blast Steve. As I mentioned in another post, I've read the book and think it's innovative, with terrific advice, that I will probably spend a life time gleaning to my advantage. And I'm actually quite open to a lot of things. For instance: His [and his wife's claims] of astral projection and demons, although I find highly unlikely as it defies logic for much of the same reasoning Steve rejects religion (as have I) I do not reject outright. Although it sounds silly and farfetched to me, I don't have all the answers, especially when it comes to the after-life. And then, with regard to the universal and irreducible principles of truth, love and power, I want to believe they are what he claims, and in the genius that elicited them; but here more than anywhere I need to find Steve credible – specifically his character, and intellectual abilities.

Steve, I would feel a lot better about you and your philosophy if I could see transcripts of your academic accomplishments at CSUN.

Steve's philosophy is what helped him accomplish what he has, including college. His college result was a result of his philosophy, not the cause. His philosophy was not gathered at an academic institution, so what good will seeing it do for you?

I take it you have read the philosophy of many authors in your lifetime. Did you honestly go seeking their academic profiles before you thought them credible?

If you read a book from the dalai lamal, would you ask to see his academic profile before you 'feel better about his philosophy'? Do you seek proof of Aristotles credibilty before you accept his teachings?

Why dont you try the philosophy for 30 days as a test for steves truth?

As evidenced in this financial crisis, do not the academically credible individuals with a million letters behind their names get things wrong?

You already described Steves book as innovative, having terrific advice from which you would spend a lifetime gleaning advice. So what more do you want. If your instincts have made you glean all this before Steve proves his cred, what more do you want?

Originally Posted by jimshu

thanks - not bad, but not good enough. i'm still forced to take someone's word for it in that thread.

i could call csun - maybe i will. but why not just post the transcripts? that would satisfy me. i don't need to see how much money he makes - anybody in this country can make a lot of money if they're ambitious enough, or if he can float around on other planes. i just want to believe he has the intellectual capacity that in my mind would validate his theories; and that he's honest.

And lets say Steve provides you with proof. What are you going to specifically do with it? Bill Gates never finished Uni, and he never went to Business school. Is he less credible as a businessman than a MBA graduate from Harvard? No, because Bill has produced results. Results bigger than probably at least 100 graduates of Harvard combined.

Originally Posted by jimshu

this is about credibility. you're the one that uses it to establish your credibility - at the beginning of your book. but you stop short in that process, by not providing proof. we're just supposed to take your word for it. why make the claim if your words alone should suffice? as for your argument of me being a figment, and the impractical and not necessarily effectual [in establishing credibility] "me meeting you face-to-face and getting to know you" -

since so much of your words sound "right", and quite profound, when i come across something that doesn't sound "right", I have to make a decision. should i trust my instincts or his? as i have doubts as to whether or not my instincts have served me well to this point [in life], i strongly consider trusting someone elses - in this case yours. in order to make that leap of faith, i need to believe in your integrity. and you've made some extravagant claims to bolster your credibility, but refuse to back them up.

Dude, I beleive you are eiether telling porkies or you are unaware. I do not beleive you go around seeking the credibility of all the authors whose philosophies you take on. If you claim you have, please provide proof.
We both know you can never get the creds of 99.9% of the people who hold your life in their hands with their technology, goods and services.

Do you ask for the engineer credentials of the builder of the airplane you fly in, or the car you drive in? Do you ask for proof of the nutrient profile befor you eat any food?

You sound intelligent. We both know, proof of someones philosophy is in testing it for yourself. We both know, no expert on this planet has checked the credibilty of all the authors they trusted, to learn what they had to be labeled expert.

What would this world be if the creds of Einstein and Edison had been scrutanised before people trusted them, since they both did crap at school.

Why did you read the book? All of it? Should you not have investigated Steves cred before investing time in it? You say you recognised truth and genius in his writings? If he turns out false, would your conclusions of his book be false?

Originally Posted by jimshu

with regard to trusting your instincts, anytime anyone gives you advice they are indirectly asking you to trust their instincts.

well, my instincts are telling me to find out if this guy's for real. they would tell me something different if he would substantiate his claims.

you know the messianic parallels here between him and jesus and christianity are remarkable. this ostensibly extraordinary human being, who is also a man of the people (issues with stealing - truth??) asks you to believe and not question him, or use your intellect. oh, and refuses to prove anything.

Well lets say steve doesnt show you his creds (if I were him, I wouldnt, since I dont beleive your motives for asking. After all, the Csun is there for you to see) will you now disgard all you have learnt from him? You do realise you have a choice to listen to your instincts. You cant tell me your instincts are always right. If you argue they are, well your instincts have left you up s***creek. A major addition to your philosophy now depends on Steves wish to oblige or decline you

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by jimshu

this ostensibly extraordinary human being [...] asks you to believe and not question him, or use your intellect. oh, and refuses to prove anything.

Steve never asked you to not use your intellect.
In fact, he said the opposite.

So you either misspoke or you're lying...

Originally Posted by jimshu

as i have doubts as to whether or not my instincts have served me well to this point [in life]

Originally Posted by jimshu

well, my instincts are telling me to find out if this guy's for real.

Man those crazy instincts of yours! Back and forth, see saw see saw.

[James81]

The proof is in the pudding.

That is, if you REALLY want to know if something works or not, try it for yourself and see.

Personal Development is a good area for trying things out, because, well, there's little damage to be done from trying something that doesn't work for you. The damage in personal development is being skeptical about everything you read to the point where you only selectively try a handful of things.

[jimshu]

steve - you're exhorting people to quit their jobs. you belittle people with jobs, even calling them names - I saw "moron" and "coward". and your primary alternative for them is to start an informational web site (something that you get paid for if they use the product that you recommend). i think you have a lot of gall trying to claim that you're just innocently posting your thoughts.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Ah Fraser, animals communicate quite clearly with their faces. Surely we can.

I tried that. The old lady on the other side of the bus was terrified!

[Daffy Duck]

Ah, there we go. Jim, if you have a problem with Steve's message, why didn't you say so in the beginning?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by jimshu

steve - you're exhorting people to quit their jobs. you belittle people with jobs, even calling them names - I saw "moron" and "coward". and your primary alternative for them is to start an informational web site (something that you get paid for if they use the product that you recommend). i think you have a lot of gall trying to claim that you're just innocently posting your thoughts.

I don't want to defend Steve. He doesn't want that.

Prove what? How about looking at belief in general? What good is a belief other than a point of view at a certain time for a certain individual? Trying to make someone prove their belief just so you can believe it is chasing someone else's experience.

If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jimshu

steve - you're exhorting people to quit their jobs. you belittle people with jobs, even calling them names - I saw "moron" and "coward". and your primary alternative for them is to start an informational web site (something that you get paid for if they use the product that you recommend). i think you have a lot of gall trying to claim that you're just innocently posting your thoughts.

Why yes, I do have a lot of gall. Thank you for noticing. I don't pretend to do anything innocently though. I enjoy getting paid for helping people make career transitions. You'll find that I'm quite shameless about that. Starting an info biz online is only one of countless options.

Incidentally... why do you think you're running the outrage script on me? Deep down you know it has nothing to do with me, don't you? Are you perhaps unhappy with your job but feeling powerless to transition to something more fulfilling? If so, you might enjoy this article on career transitions.

Why are you really here? What do you want to do with your life? How can we help you experience what you want?

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I really think colleges should drop the letter grading and go back to happy/neutral/sad faces.

OK, Steve gets a

EDIT: Wait, an A+? That converts to a

[James81]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If so, you might enjoy this article on career transitions.

Great article. Exactly what I needed to hear today.

My excuse: I have no idea which direction I want to choose. I have several things that I think I'd love to do (and as a result several businesses that I'd love to get going) and am having trouble singling one out. And thing is, I've spent a lot of time analyzing myself and who I am.

I'm guessing that the excuse is probably just a symptom of some belief I hold about myself, but I'm at a loss at figuring that one out too.

[andreelerowes]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I really think colleges should drop the letter grading and go back to happy/neutral/sad faces.

I had a conversation with a guy who used to teach at a well-regarded music school. He said he had the class grade everyone's work collectively using the following: love, like-like, like, and A. That way, everyone got at least an A.