Review of Mind Body / Pool - hypnosis CD

[ShootingArts]

it is accepted scientific truth

What do you base that on? It sounds like a great philosophy, but to pass it off as a scientific truth.... sheesh!! I don't suppose it matters, if it helps your game

Timmy,

This is indeed accepted scientific truth. That means the experts in the field believe this to be the truth. Something else may be accepted truth a hundred or two hundred years from now but this is current theory. More importantly, it is an excellent working theory.

If I'm down on a shot where the cue ball is a natural scratch, I can focus on "don't scratch, don't scratch, don't scratch" and all too often do exactly what I don't want to do. I can also mentally picture, verbalize in my mind, and focus on the cue ball hitting four inches from the corner pocket and going two rails out to near center of the table. It usually happens just that way. It isn't very effective for me to focus on not doing something, much more effective for me to focus on doing something.

It doesn't matter to us if the scientific theory is dead wrong if we get the results we need. The most knowledgeable man I knew in practical application in his field had about a third grade education. He believed in witchcraft and the effects of the moon on both the earth and all animals. I was sometimes pretty sure that when he told me to do something or not do something that his underlying belief of why I should do things that way might be wrong but what he actually told me to do would be spot on. He was an old farmer that worked at a state university lab farm. He was proven right over the PhD's an embarrassing number of times in practical matters.

Research has proven that if the absolute statement you focus on, basically the sentence stripped of it's modifiers, is an unwanted action you are more likely to get that result than if you focus on nothing at all or positive statements. Some research should turn up supporting documentation if you are interested, I delved into this years ago and have long since forgotten my sources and the sources they referenced.

Hu

 

[edd]

What do you base that on? It sounds like a great philosophy, but to pass it off as a scientific truth.... sheesh!! I don't suppose it matters, if it helps your game

It is understandable that one might be skeptical when hearing about unconscious processes. But, for whatever its worth, please know that I am a licensed psychotherapist, practicing for over 30 years. I am nationally certified in clinical hypnosis, specializing in treating foks with chronic pain and psychosomatic disorders. Everyday I witness how unconscious processes, like guilt, affect health and well-being. If you think there is not an intimate mind/body connection, then consider a blush. One becomes embarrased then begins thinking self-denigrating thoughts that become manifested physicially. Most headaches are caused, or influenced, by psychological conflict.

We all know how negative thoughts can sabatoge our efforts, via muscle tension, etc.. Another parallel is the autonomic nervous system which controls our heart rate, etc. We are typically not aware of our respiration rate, etc. Similarly, we can be influenced by our unconscious thought processes, of which we have little awareness.

The right hemisphere of the brain is very concrete and processes information metaphorically. In other words it thinks in pictures. When you practice the mental game via visualization, you are building muscle memory. Since the right brain (or unconscious) thinks so concretely, our self-talk needs to be positive vs negative, as noted earlier.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

 

[TimmyB80]

if your personal experience shows that something works repeatedly I don't believe a scientific fact is needed. by experience I mean; years of having the thought "just don't scratch in the side" and it laser tracks to the side and times of clear headedness where a spot is picked and scratching never happens

I get what you mean... but aim the ball properly and it doesn’t matter what you are thinking, I’m pretty sure it will go in! Of course nerves can effect your shot, but what about when you miss otherwise (w/o negative thoughts)?

This is indeed accepted scientific truth. That means the experts in the field believe this to be the truth. Something else may be accepted truth a hundred or two hundred years from now but this is current theory. More importantly, it is an excellent working theory.

This is already a misnomer. If it were a truth, it would be a scientific law. But there are no laws in anything psychology-based, we are not even close to that yet... too complicated! Excellent working theory I totally buy. It doesn't matter to us if the scientific theory is dead wrong if we get the results we need. Totally agree....sugar pill, placebo, what works, works.

If you think there is not an intimate mind/body connection, then consider a blush.

Well I’m not silly, of course there is a connection between minds and body. Another good example is a sympathetic yawn (you yawn, I yawn, we all yawn... no one is sure why but it is!).

Most headaches are caused, or influenced, by psychological conflict.

Now I am calling shannanigans on that. You must be talking to Freud in your dreams. This is totally not proven. There are many types of headaches... migraines, cluster, tension, secondary. They can be manifested by physical or emotion trauma... but to say most is totally silly. Give me something to back that up! Otherwise I’ll tell you I believe in Unicorns and you can’t prove me otherwise

The right hemisphere of the brain is very concrete and processes information metaphorically. In other words it thinks in pictures. When you practice the mental game via visualization, you are building muscle memory. Since the right brain (or unconscious) thinks so concretely, our self-talk needs to be positive vs negative, as noted earlier.

Right brain = concrete... more or less I agree. To say “it” thinks in pictures...that is way oversimplified. Thinking in pictures is very bilateral, involving temporal lobe, visual cortex, and accessory visual cortex. Like daydreaming. Mental practice = muscle memory... agree. To say “unconscious” as being solely right-brained....uhhh....no.

Here is something based on science... in case you are wondering:

Step-by-step: The effects of physical practice on the neural correlates of locomotion imagery revealed by fMRI Iontna et. al. 2009
“In our paradigm, most of the postural manipulation (and imagery effort) was on relief of the right leg (the heel was under the right foot). The significant right cerebellar activity during motor imagery of locomotion after short practice when compared with imagery of stance is in line with previous studies on the imagery of different motor behaviors and that found a cerebellar activation IPSI-lateral to the limb involved in the imagined movement [Luft et al.,[1998]; Naito et al.,[2002]], whereas cerebellar activation after long practice showed a large variability across subjects and was not significant at the group level. Cerebellum is connected to SMA via the basal ganglia [Hoshi et al.,[2005]]. It is involved in motor imagery, even if with a weaker activity with respect to the execution of the same movement [Lafleur,[2002]; Nair et al.,[2003]]. Cerebellum has also been shown to play an important role in the motor imagery of slow movements [Jahn et al.,[2004]] and in the organization of movement sequences: indeed, it is recruited during imagery of playing tennis [Decety et al.,[1990]; Ryding et al.,[1993]], dancing [Sacco et al.,[2006]], standing, walking, and running [Jahn et al.,[2004]], playing golf [Ross et al.,[2003]]. Our task required a sharp imagined coordination, and this is probably why we found cerebellar activation in all conditions.”


Now... honestly I buy that meditation, imagery definitely helps do help your game... any good sports psychologist could prove that. I just enjoy the good conversation...

 

[crmdog]

I used to play golf a lot; two times a week at least and a lot of time at the range and putting green on top of it. I can honestly say that Bob Rotella's Golf is Not a Game of Perfect helped me go from the low 90s to the low/mid 80s over the course of several months. Great book and concepts (conservative strategy/confident execution became a mantra).

 

[ShootingArts]

laws are broken

This is already a misnomer. If it were a truth, it would be a scientific law.

Even laws and "hard facts" change. Physics is usually expressed as absolute fact yet the world of physics has been turned on it's ear a handful of times. Likewise engineering books give charts and tables of hard data that is accepted fact. That accepted fact has had to be modified once we have the ability to crunch the numbers and manufacture things with minimum safety factors. Turns out the older numbers worked because engineers accepted the difficulty of making precise calculations and were using greater margins of error.

If you get a book on math or science written a hundred years ago or even earlier you will find much to amuse yourself with. It is very hard for us to accept that people reading our books we accept as fact a hundred years from now will be equally amused by what they read. I'm not talking about just the things largely based on observations and deductions like the workings of the mind but what we regard as hard math and science now also.

It was long scientific fact that a heavier than air aircraft couldn't fly with no conventional means of propulsion. That is false and I have built and flown such aircraft under the direction of the man holding the patent on the way this works. No moving parts and only electrical fields provide the lift. A bit of trivia, a model of this craft was flown from a conference table with fourteen of Goodyear Aerospace's top brass watching. They were very excited and planned to contact the inventor a few days after this demonstration. Never heard from them. When they were contacted their engineers and scientists had convinced them that all fourteen of them had suffered from the same hallucination and Goodyear would become a laughingstock if they invested in this!!

All of the things above are why I consider very little to be absolute fact or as you put it "law".

Hu

 

[TimmyB80]

If you get a book on math or science written a hundred years ago or even earlier you will find much to amuse yourself with. It is very hard for us to accept that people reading our books we accept as fact a hundred years from now will be equally amused by what they read. I'm not talking about just the things largely based on observations and deductions like the workings of the mind but what we regard as hard math and science now also.

Hard math and science is based on observations and deductions! In sciences now-a-days, we are not limiting ourselves by stating that we know everything. Biology is a prime example. There might be 20 some-odd reactions taking place during the Kreb cycle, but knowing that doesn't mean you fully understand energy metabolism/catabolism... there are thousands of other cellular functions that have a direct/indirect role, that we would be foolish to think that's it. I'll give anyone a dollar that can say they know all there is to know about any topic!

It was long scientific fact that a heavier than air aircraft couldn't fly with no conventional means of propulsion.That is false and I have built and flown such aircraft under the direction of the man holding the patent on the way this works. No moving parts and only electrical fields provide the lift. A bit of trivia, a model of this craft was flown from a conference table with fourteen of Goodyear Aerospace's top brass watching. They were very excited and planned to contact the inventor a few days after this demonstration. Never heard from them. When they were contacted their engineers and scientists had convinced them that all fourteen of them had suffered from the same hallucination and Goodyear would become a laughingstock if they invested in this!!

Now that sounds very interesting!! With no moving parts I am curious at to how you steer! But you said that it's not conventional, so I can believe that it is something unconventional.

As I said before, I think the meditation CD is probably fantastic... I own a book or two on that topic (not for pool specifically) I was just interested (albeit arguing) in the idea of "the unconscious" not understanding negatives. If you say that by thinking "don't scratch, don't scratch!" would make you scratch, then it seems logical that you should always think, "don't make it, don't make it!" and let your unconscious blast that ball in the pocket! There is a whole slew of "Positive Thinking" stuff out there, where people dote on what the mind is capable of, many of it genuine and anecdotal... but to tell me that the unconscious doesn't comprehend a negative statement, all I'm saying is... where did you get that from?? It's obvious that nerves can make you miss. Having that quiet place can calm you nerves. You would probably miss less. I bet if you found that quite place, and still thought to yourself, "don't scratch in that side pocket!", you would do just fine. In all actuality, worrying about it is somewhat good, it's proactive, you are acknowledging it's there. It allows you to take steps to avoid it (such as meditation CDs, lol). Fear the side pocket!!!

 

[12310bch]

Buy it!

Improvements in an old game like mine are hard to measure but I am dwelling on past successes now rather than the failures. I mean why think that you might miss a shot that you've been making for 50 years? LIne up and shoot it just the way you've done it a thousand times before. I can't measure the improvement after using Mind/Body pool but I just feel better about my game when I go into competition. And it's cheaper than Moori tip. I shoot every day. I listen to the CD every day.


-------------BUY IT! USE IT!-------

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Physics is usually expressed as absolute fact ...

While that's the way it often comes across in informal articles, it is far from the way most scientists approach (or are supposed to approach) problems. The current philosophy of science states that theories can not be proved, theories can only be disproved. The process is, in general: make observations, develop a theory to explain the observations, predict other experiments that test the theory, see if those experiments disprove the theory. If the theory is disproved, modify the theory or develop a new theory that explains all of the observations.

Sometimes there are two theories that explain the same observations. Then you need to devise a test which can show that one of them is false. But showing that a competing theory is false does not prove (in the geometric/logical sense of prove) the truth of the theory that continues to agree with observations.

In that light, "It was long scientific fact that a heavier than air aircraft couldn't fly with no conventional means of propulsion," was never true. There was no such accepted "fact." A similar tale is told of bumble bee's being unable to fly, according to some scientist. Here's probably what really happened (http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html):

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.​

 

[ShootingArts]

a little more

Timmy,

The aircraft flies by having an area of higher pressure and lower pressure. The unusual thing is these pressures are of electrical fields not air. Because we could have multiple arrays creating these fields it is very possible to have the object move in any direction. One weakness of airships is that they are difficult to land. The last I knew to maintain control they flew down to near the ground under power and then trailing ropes or cables still had to be caught. Since no forward speed is required with the electrical fields steering control was the big selling point to Goodyear.

To be a little clearer, observation and deduction is like when a doctor examines your symptoms and deduces that you have a flu or the mumps. He hasn't directly seen that you have this wrong with you. On the other hand when you break and the cue ball goes sailing off the table you have direct empirical evidence that you have fouled. Had the cue ball flown up and hit the light and broken it and landed back on the table without you witnessing it when your opponent broke you could only observe the broken light on the table and by deduction you might decide the cue ball had flown up and hit the light. Probably but not necessarily true, perhaps the cue stick flew up into the light. These are examples of why empirical evidence is stronger than observation and deduction.

My final thought concerning what we should be thinking about when competing or attempting a task is that we are more likely to do something when we are focusing on it than when we are not. I far prefer to focus on where I want the cue ball to go than where I don't want it to go.

Space Charge Propulsion is the name of the process that allowed the aircraft to fly. A quick search didn't turn up an old unauthorized write up on it that was once on the internet. A look at ion propulsion systems will show that electricity can generate thrust however. The ion systems actually use a fuel of sorts being meant to be used in a vacuum, space charge propulsion works in atmosphere consuming nothing but the electrical energy used. The models used 35,000-40,000 volts to fly but very low amperage. I don't remember the amperage but I seem to recall it was under 0.10 amp.

Hu

Now that sounds very interesting!! With no moving parts I am curious at to how you steer! But you said that it's not conventional, so I can believe that it is something unconventional.

As I said before, I think the meditation CD is probably fantastic... I own a book or two on that topic (not for pool specifically) I was just interested (albeit arguing) in the idea of "the unconscious" not understanding negatives. If you say that by thinking "don't scratch, don't scratch!" would make you scratch, then it seems logical that you should always think, "don't make it, don't make it!" and let your unconscious blast that ball in the pocket! There is a whole slew of "Positive Thinking" stuff out there, where people dote on what the mind is capable of, many of it genuine and anecdotal... but to tell me that the unconscious doesn't comprehend a negative statement, all I'm saying is... where did you get that from?? It's obvious that nerves can make you miss. Having that quiet place can calm you nerves. You would probably miss less. I bet if you found that quite place, and still thought to yourself, "don't scratch in that side pocket!", you would do just fine. In all actuality, worrying about it is somewhat good, it's proactive, you are acknowledging it's there. It allows you to take steps to avoid it (such as meditation CDs, lol). Fear the side pocket!!!

 

[ShootingArts]

theory and scientific theory

Bob,

We can get tangled in the way words are used inside a niche field and outside of it. "Theory" to a scientist means something different than it does to the general public, including myself. That is why "the theory of evolution" is taught as fact in classrooms.

You are quite right that we often can not prove something 100%. Even if we prove it is true in a million instances, we haven't proven it is an absolute truth. It is fairly easy to prove something isn't an absolute truth, we only have to prove it wrong in one instance.

I used to enjoy carefully laying a train of reasonable evidence down and then coming to a ridiculous conclusion. A short version, thousands of things in thousands of laboratories tested by thousands of different people are found to cause cancer. The one constant is laboratories. Therefore we must conclude that the laboratory conditions themselves are what actually cause cancer.

Hu

While that's the way it often comes across in informal articles, it is far from the way most scientists approach (or are supposed to approach) problems. The current philosophy of science states that theories can not be proved, theories can only be disproved. The process is, in general: make observations, develop a theory to explain the observations, predict other experiments that test the theory, see if those experiments disprove the theory. If the theory is disproved, modify the theory or develop a new theory that explains all of the observations.

Sometimes there are two theories that explain the same observations. Then you need to devise a test which can show that one of them is false. But showing that a competing theory is false does not prove (in the geometric/logical sense of prove) the truth of the theory that continues to agree with observations.

In that light, "It was long scientific fact that a heavier than air aircraft couldn't fly with no conventional means of propulsion," was never true. There was no such accepted "fact." A similar tale is told of bumble bee's being unable to fly, according to some scientist. Here's probably what really happened (http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html):

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.​

 

[edd]

Improvements in an old game like mine are hard to measure but I am dwelling on past successes now rather than the failures. I mean why think that you might miss a shot that you've been making for 50 years? LIne up and shoot it just the way you've done it a thousand times before. I can't measure the improvement after using Mind/Body pool but I just feel better about my game when I go into competition. And it's cheaper than Moori tip. I shoot every day. I listen to the CD every day.


-------------BUY IT! USE IT!-------

Thank you for the endorsement. I'm glad to hear you're finding it helpful. It is designed for regular use, as you've been doing.

 

[ShootingRazbone]

I know this isn't the point of this thread, but that's a pretty bold statement you made. Let's not forget about Mike Painter and Ron Frank. Those guys can beat ANYBODY! So if you really do consider yourself the best player in central Virginia, this really IS saying alot.

I just beat Ron Frank out of 2k on a barbox and I offered him the 8 on a 9 ft and he wouldn't take it..... Mike is in jail and aint playing anybody and if he was he can get all the action he wants plus. Anyone else you have in mind... yourself perhaps?

 

[JesseAllred]

have in mind

I just beat Ron Frank out of 2k on a barbox and I offered him the 8 on a 9 ft and he wouldn't take it..... Mike is in jail and aint playing anybody and if he was he can get all the action he wants plus. Anyone else you have in mind... yourself perhaps?

Let me listen to my CD a few times first and then I'll take the 8. or better yet, would you mind if I listened to it while we played?

 

[easy-e]

I just beat Ron Frank out of 2k on a barbox and I offered him the 8 on a 9 ft and he wouldn't take it..... Mike is in jail and aint playing anybody and if he was he can get all the action he wants plus. Anyone else you have in mind... yourself perhaps?

Are you serious? There's a couple of reasons we won't be playing each other, let me list them:

1) I am in New Hampshire now, and when I leave here next month I will be living in California. You really want me to come to Lynchburg to play pool with you?

2) I only gamble for fun. I make way too much money working to gamble with anyone unless I am having fun (Ron Frank is a great example of a fun person to gamble with, always a gentleman). Anyone who declares themselves the best player in the middle of a state is way too full of themselves to make it a good time.

3) I can't beat a mouthy wife on Super Bowl Sunday.

You can keep trying to get a game with me, but you'd be wasting your time. How can you possibly say you are better than players like Ron, Mike, and anyone else in the area and it's "not saying much"? Who does that?

I hope you aren't interested in making fans or friends with your posts. I didn't even know about this thread until people around Roanoke told me about it and laughed at how big of an ego you must have to have posted it.

Good luck with your future in pool, I hope it gives you everything you are looking for.l

 

[ShootingRazbone]

Are you serious? There's a couple of reasons we won't be playing each other, let me list them:

1) I am in New Hampshire now, and when I leave here next month I will be living in California. You really want me to come to Lynchburg to play pool with you?

2) I only gamble for fun. I make way too much money working to gamble with anyone unless I am having fun (Ron Frank is a great example of a fun person to gamble with, always a gentleman). Anyone who declares themselves the best player in the middle of a state is way too full of themselves to make it a good time.

3) I can't beat a mouthy wife on Super Bowl Sunday.

You can keep trying to get a game with me, but you'd be wasting your time. How can you possibly say you are better than players like Ron, Mike, and anyone else in the area and it's "not saying much"? Who does that?

I hope you aren't interested in making fans or friends with your posts. I didn't even know about this thread until people around Roanoke told me about it and laughed at how big of an ego you must have to have posted it.

Good luck with your future in pool, I hope it gives you everything you are looking for.l

The right thing to do would have been to pm me if you have a problem. This thread isn't about this and you should know better.

You have my pm sir.

BTW you wanna play some or no?

 

[ShootingRazbone]

Let me listen to my CD a few times first and then I'll take the 8. or better yet, would you mind if I listened to it while we played?

Once you start listening to the CD Ill need the 6 out :thumbup:

 

[easy-e]

The right thing to do would have been to pm me if you have a problem. This thread isn't about this and you should know better.

You have my pm sir.

BTW you wanna play some or no?

Allow me to repeat myself...3) I can't beat a mouthy wife on Super Bowl Sunday.

I'd be happy if you just gave some other guys a little more credit.

 

[ShootingRazbone]

Allow me to repeat myself...3) I can't beat a mouthy wife on Super Bowl Sunday.

I'd be happy if you just gave some other guys a little more credit.

This thread wasnt about those other guys. This thread is about MY Review of Mind Body / Pool CD.

 

[12310bch]

Kincaid deserves some reviews of Mind/Body Pool. Why don't you guys go to the Action Forum with your woofin' and let us read some more opinions of his CD with out having to wade through your challenges? :slap:

 

[easy-e]

This thread wasnt about those other guys. This thread is about MY Review of Mind Body / Pool CD.

Kincaid deserves some reviews of Mind/Body Pool. Why don't you guys go to the Action Forum with your woofin' and let us read some more opinions of his CD with out having to wade through your challenges?

You guys are right, I apologize.