In article <2008030602454377923-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>,
John C. Randolph nospam.mac.com> wrote:

Exactly.

Look, if Tom had been honest about the science or pseudo-science or
alternative science surrounding 3D mind, then his over-the-top puffery
of his method would be just that, puffery.

But when someone says that the reason his method is different is because
of years of research or tens of thousands of interviews or because
someone well-known outside the inspirational self-help circles being
advertised to, then I'm quite interested in learning about the people
who did the research, reading the raw research materials as published in
scientific journals, and reading the peer-reviewed commentary and seeing
how much of the advertising puffery is puffery and how much is the truth.

Dr. David Burns of the University of Pennsylvania helped popularize
Cognitive Behavior Therapy, and later wrote a book that applied CBT to
seduction. CBT's effectiveness has been demonstrated through hundreds of
studies, studies that are readily available to review and done under
proper research conditions. It is easy, then, to see how CBT could help
someone's inner game--especially the mind games--that one plays with
himself during the seduction process. But it's easy to see that the
claims make sense because you can review the research for yourself.

Tom, on the other hand, makes a number of claims about his product. Then
when he says that his product is based upon "sound science" and is asked
to prove that claim, he starts mentioning "neuroscientists" and "visual
cortex" and other scientific terms. When someone knowledgeable about
such things then asked Tom for clarification, he said that he couldn't
explain it, but Dr. Ken could, so ask him. This indicated that Tom
either doesn't really understand the sound science (so how does he know
it's sound?), or that Dr. Ken is trying to impress Tom by using a lot of
big words Tom can't understand to fool Tom into thinking that his
product has some scientific merit, or that Tom is well aware that his
product is based upon no real science, but he is hoping to fool others
into thinking so they will buy his product. My hunch is for the latter
of the three.

He also says that his speech recognition software frequently
malfunctions. I have noticed that it never malfunctions in a way that
directly hurts the way his product is intended to be perceived though.
It always malfunctions in such a way that improves the perception of his
product. The malfunction never is "We're offerin' no money back
guarantee" instead of "We're offerin' a money back guarantee." It's
always "well, I said 'of' and the software put a period there."

Never mind that the particular explanation given (the software confused
the word "of" for the end of the sentence) doesn't make sense. It makes
more logical sense that a finger typing hit the period instead of the
comma key, which are right next to each other.

As more inconsistencies pile up, the case against Tom grows stronger.
Tom and his most avid proponents resort to name-calling instead of
addressing the inconsistencies. Because their marketing is based almost
solely upon testimonials and the "scientific believability" of their
product, they feel that anything that shows the inaccuracies of the
scientific claims regarding the product would doom the product forever.

Since Tom made the claims of scientific evidence in favor of 3D mind, it
is up to him to show that evidence. Otherwise, I'm quite content to
believe that the evidence doesn't exist.

Tom or HellBwat or both are free at anytime to post the evidence and
clear the air once and for all. All they have to do is cite the
peer-reviewed journal articles that show how 3D mind (or any one of the
exclusive components of 3d mind) is more effective than other personal
change therapies.