Raf

Ah. Passengers is the giveaway. Murder on the Orient Express

Now and then I think it pays, as we recall the trees that made up TWI, to take a step back and look at the forest. TWI was a pattern of deception. It wasn't that there was something wrong. It wasn't even that there were a lot of things wrong. The whole enterprise was rotten to the core. Every good thing about it was a trap to draw you into its real reason to exist: to control you and leave you utterly dependent on them for as many facets of your life as possible. I'm lucky. I got out fast. For those of you who stayed a long time: I can't fathom the damage that was done. I'm impressed that you got out in one piece! It's like I said when the Actual Errors thread came to a merciful end: trying to mine our TWI experience to figure out what was good in it is like looking at the cheese in a mousetrap as a potential source of calcium. I'm not denying it's cheese. I'm not denying it has calcium. But I'm also not losing sight of who laid it out there and why.

If anyone thinks a good point has been made that deserves a response, please copy and paste it, and I will be happy to do so. I am not wasting my time on this anymore. Sow-weeee.

Yeah, and the cast of Ishtar was pretty well respected too. ;)

Sherlock Holmes (the recent one, with Robert Downey)? Or Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows ?

I laughed. For the record, I don't routinely check reports of abuse or rules violations. Not saying I never have, but if someone wants to report me, it's not a useless exercise. Other mods will see it. And if I act on such a report, by trying to sweep it under the rug or some such nonsense, that's trackable. The other mods CAN see what I've done. I imagine the consequences of my doing so would be severe. In other words, feel free to report me if you think I've violated the rules. I probably won't see it, and on the off chance I do, I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I'll accept any of three movies for this one. But only the three obvious ones. No parodies. My precious...

That's hilarious. But wouldn't it be more accurate to pull your vote and not cast one at all due to uncertainty? I mean, you don't really agree with me. I mean, if you're sure you faked it and are fessing up, great. Welcome to the club. But wouldn't the option right before the last option be the correct one for you? I can't have convinced you that it's all fake, have I? Not with such shoddy research as I've been citing?

Cheated. Never heard of the second movie. Sequel to Traxx?

Wow. A quote was taken out of context and applied to something we weren't discussing? That just stuns me. It is so unlike anything we've seen a billion times on this thread already. You are absolutely correct, Waysider. Samarin was not testing or discussing Acts 2, and I am not questioning it. I did get the quote wrong, though. It was "a glossa is never a natural language." Samarin also distinguished between the hypothetical real case of xenoglossia and glossolalia. The difference? One produces a language. The other does not. In Samarin's later works, he is more explicit about this finding. But he's a hack who doesn't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. We should be trusting Landry. There's an unbiased researcher we can trust! I haven't read Chockfull's latest posts and don't intend to. Sorry. Done. But I do want to clarify something I said yesterday regarding the scientific method and what scientists do when they classify unknown objects or phenomena according to their properties. To the best of my knowledge, all science, including classification, employs the scientific method. I hope I was clear in saying that the scientific method of hypothesis testing is an element of classification that is present in every step of that process. It's just not always a big explicit thing where you formulate the question, state the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the data and draw a conclusion. It's an implicit thing. Anyway, it's tedious to go through it step by step, but you need to understand that I am not denying the use of the scientific method as a fundamental element of the classification process. It's there, in every step. When you sniff a carton of milk (or a bottle, most of the time these days) to determine whether it's gone bad, you've employed the scientific method. You haven't drawn a big chart. You haven't outlined every step. But if you had to go back and break it down, you will be able to identify the scientific method at work. Is this milk good? Hypothesis: This milk is good. Prediction: Good milk doesn't smell like a dead rat. Test: You smell the milk. Analysis: This smells like a dead rat. Conclusion: This milk is not good. Classification works the same way. So if I left you with the impression that classification does not employ the scientific method, that is my error of wording and not an error of understanding. Chockfull wants a null hypothesis test of the question "there is no difference between glossolalia and free vocalization." There is no way to put such a test together that will satisfy him, me or anyone else. There is no way to reach a confidence interval that will satisfy anyone because it's an all or nothing proposition. The simpler thing to do is subject every glossa to the scientific method to properly classify it. Scientists, particularly linguists, have done this. Without exception, they find that glossolalia does not produce a known language. You can quibble about their methods and reject them on any grounds you want. I'm not interested in arguing about that anymore. This isn't a trial. I'm not the judge. Let the readers decide whether to trust the results or mistrust them based on Chockfull's objections.

Been keeping my eye on the poll. It looks like a vote changed. Am I right? Anyone else keeping track? No need to step forward. I just didn't know you could change votes.

I don't mean to be critical of Newberg's study. I'm only pointing out its severely limited applicability to the discussion we're having (an opinion supported by the evidence that I am stating as a perceived fact).

That would be pretty long term. Newberg apparently compared the brain scans of his subjects to themselves, not to each other. In other words, the scan of Subject A with the understanding was compared to the scan of Subject A while speaking in tongues. It does not appear the scan of Subject A was compared to the scan of Subject B in either state. That would mean the beginning jazz musician would have to be compared to himself before and after he developed a bit of expertise in improv. Not sure how practical that is. Come to think of it, that also makes it problematic to compare an admittedly fake SIT to a presumed real one. Unless the same person were performing both activities. And that would be problematic for a host of different reasons.

I could see where TIP could be compared to the improve in rap music that they showed in that video. Again, there is a challenge there. The rappers are deliberately trying to rhyme. A creative juice is flowing that is not present in TIP. Could that show up in the brain scan? Is there a way to isolate and correct for that? Who knows? But a study would be interesting.

I'll take your word for it, but I would bet the complex creative juices that work in musical improvisation are distinct from the more fundamental creativity of free vocalization, and that difference can be picked up in a brain scan. That's my bet. I have no evidence because no one has compared the two. A hypothesis for Newberg to consider in his next study?

I agree. We're just talking on different scales. I'll bet a lot of Jazz musicians are GREAT at improv. I'll bet most people are lousy at it. I'll bet a beginning jazz musician is not as good at it as one whose played for a significant period of time. We are in agreement, really, but I understand how you read what I said.

A significant problem with musical improvisation compared to what we've been calling free vocalization is the fact that musical improv, done well, requires the exercising of a (normally) developed talent, where free vocalizing merely requires the exercising of a common and ubiquitous human ability: to produce sounds. So I would expect the brain scans to be substantially different. The musical improviser first has to think of what sound could come next, make a lightning-quick decision as to whether that sound follows harmoniously or melodically, rule it in or out on that basis, and then hurry up and play it. Would that affect the frontal lobe? We know it affects the creative center of the brain. We can see that in the video and it is, predictably, different from anything described in the SIT study. But would a comparison teach us anything useful to this conversation? I don't know. I suspect it's an apples and oranges comparison, in ways that make a brain-scan comparison problematic. All interesting stuff, no doubt.

I like the redundant ones. :)

Why are you dragging me into this? I'm not Word Wolf. That was a joke.

Most people performing musical improvisation would be really bad at it. Now and then you get someone who's good. Rarely is someone great at it. But whether you're bad at it or great at it, it's all you. To presume spirit must be involved is quite a presumption. There is nothing that is produced that is not consistent with natural human ability. Now, if someone improvised on the piano and somehow came up with "Prelude/Angry Young Man" without ever having practiced or heard it before, THAT would be evidence of spiritual activity. I mean, you can't come up with THAT at random. Well, you can, but the odds against it are prohibitive and can't be taken seriously. But to merely produce music that sounds good, even great? Nothing miraculous there. Impressive, yes. But not miraculous. Similarly, a beginning glossolalist might produce a limited range of sounds. The more he does it, the better he gets at it. Excellor sessions might help with that, developing "fluency," as it were. What were excellor sessions if they were not efforts to make comparatively "bad" glossolalia sound like better glossolalia? Producing a glossa that sounds really impressive is not, in and of itself, miraculous. Impressive, yes, but not miraculous. Producing a known human language you've never practiced or learned? That would be miraculous. But there it is.

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Limb introduces an interesting word we can apply to our discussion as an alternative to free vocalization (which is a perfectly acceptable term in my view but seems to create conniption fits in other(s?). Innovation. The human brain is an innovative machine. A musician who innovates a sequence of notes AS he is playing, no pre-planning, isn't automatically believed to be under spiritual influence. What we've been referring to as "free vocalization" can also be described as a kind of vocal innovation: bringing forth a series of sounds with no cognitive pattern. With a piano, we call it improv. I hope I don't have to prove that the brain is capable of improvisation. I really hope I don't have to prove that. Let's see if anyone else uses the term "improvisation" or a variation of it while discussing SIT. I'll be gosh darned: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/glossolalia.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=UjUulaAocmoC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=glossolalia+improvisation+Samarin&source=bl&ots=Jj6bGZWK9c&sig=Ag_MNnnTCu4K9TrwBh54YSqbGq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_IaSUKiZBYjYywHAz4G4Aw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=glossolalia%20improvisation%20Samarin&f=false That's all I could find in a few short minutes, and I had to dig for them. What I would likely do next is hunt down any differences between free vocalization (as defined in Poythress and used on this thread) and vocal improvisation, free improvisation, vocal innovation and other such words. Not sure the overlap is 100%, but willing to be it's significant.

Hmm. A decent summary of the raw data. Some really good analysis of the psychoanalytic history of glossolalia (much of it reflecting the issues I just raised in going over his hypotheses. Well done). First hypothesis predicted a decrease in frontal lobe activity from singing (with the understanding) to glossolalia. That prediction was validated (big shock. Speaking with the understanding uses the frontal lobe. Speaking without it does not). What distinguishes it from non-spiritual fakery? The study doesn't consider that question. (Can I say free vocalization again? Or is that going to get challenged every time I bring it up?) Second hypothesis predicted a difference between glossolalia and meditation. That difference was confirmed. I'm confident that if he had sought a difference between glossolalia and a monastic intonation of the Lord's Prayer, he would have found that too. This should surprise no one. Third hypothesis predicted an increase in thalamic activity based on SIT being a "highly active state." This was not confirmed. He goes into some detail about what he DID find, and there's a bit more work to be done. But interesting that I found a problem with the hypothesis as it was stated, and that he evidently failed to confirm the hypothesis, no? I may have overstated that last line. You really need to read it in the original. And the last hypothesis did confirm an increased emotional state. But that could very well be because the subjects were emotional. I'm sure five TWI followers at their third fellowship of the day might have shown different results. But whatever. *** So what do we learn, definitively, from Newberg? Well, it does appear that when you're speaking in tongues, you're not pre-thinking the sounds coming out. Duh. No one said we were. This study says NOTHING about fakery, nothing about distinguishing between an actual lack of control and a perceived lack of control (whatever either term means). You know what would have been interesting? Brain scans of people interpreting and prophesying, and comparing it to those same people discussing the Word or merely praising God with their understanding, extemporaneously, no pre-planning involved. I wonder if there would be decreased frontal lobe activity then? And if so, what would it prove? My overall point is that Newberg's study is interesting, but hardly applicable to the subject we're discussing. I made that observation earlier based on news accounts, and now, with his actual study in hand, I repeat that observation.

Interesting observation. Directly contradicted by our experience. He makes a casual observation about the phonemic structure of the glossolalia, pretty much matching Samarin (and any other respectful observer). We've already noted on this thread that phonemic structure proves nothing more than the fact that the person speaks, pauses, stops, etc., just like we do when we're speaking our native language. To paraphrase another poster's review of another study: Duh. Now, onto the good stuff...

I'm looking over the Newberg paper to see if he addresses any of the issues I raised when we reviewed the same study (we already did this, oodles of pages ago) off news accounts. After all, who trusts the media to get it right? We have a peer-reviewed research paper here! The first thing that amused me is that the very first expert he cited in connection with glossolalia was Samarin. I wonder if he knows what a shoddy researcher Samarin was. He should have relied on Landry! Next thing to note is that none of the hypotheses Newberg tested involved any comparison of genuine SIT to admitted fakery. He lists his hypotheses at the end of page one and beginning of page two. In his first hypothesis, he takes for granted that there is a loss of intentional control. Depending on exactly what he means by that, it could be problematic. TWI's version of SIT did not involve a "loss of control" per se, but it did involve a surrender of control over the specific string of sounds uttered (the Sspirit gives the utterance, we control the body). So "loss of intentional control" might be a sound presumption, if that's what Newberg means. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to proceed without worrying too much about whether that wording poses a problem. Hypothesis 2: He expects glossolalia to demonstrate different mental changes compared to meditation. I don't see why this would not be the case. They're very different activities, in enough ways to expect a different outcome. No problem there. Hypothesis 3: He calls SIT "a highly active state." Again, we have a potential terminology issue. I don't think SIT as practiced in TWI can be described by a layman as "highly active." But maybe Newberg's definition is different from a layman's. We proceed, as in hypothesis 1, with some concern, but not nearly enough to dismiss the results. Hypothesis 4: He calls SIT "a very emotional state." In three of the four hypotheses, Newberg describes SIT in terms that, as laypeople, we can all directly challenge, if not contradict. Again, what does he mean by emotional? What does he mean by very emotional? Would he have had different results if all his study subjects were TWI glossolalists? I don't know. I'm inclined to believe he could. But I'm also inclined to believe it could not affect his test results. It could go either way. "Emotional" can mean different things to different people. It's hard to measure. Newberg acknowledges this. By the way... so does Samarin. To summarize: In none of Newberg's hypotheses do we see any attempt to validate or invalidate SIT. We merely see attempts to describe it and to see what it looks like to the brain performing it. Fair enough. Let's go!