Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[zoobyshoe]

Another interesting idea about therapy I casually picked up ( by a book author being interviewed in CSpan's BookTV) is the claim that one can overcome a difficult issue by "walking it away". One must not be carrying anything that impedes the natural movement. Then, the claim is, that when one thinks about the issue during the walk, the alternating movement of the left and right arms will allow the issue to be processed by both the right- and left- sides of the brain. True that this left- , right- brain is somewhat simplified, but there may be something to it.

This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.

 

[WWGD]

This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.

I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent (Thom Hartmann) is an NLP practitioner. He was interviewed in CCSpan, which usually invites reasonable people (no Ancient Aliens garbage, etc.) . This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent is an NLP practitioner (Thom Hartmann). This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.

NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)

 

[WWGD]

NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)

But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker. EDIT: I mean, if, say 3-4 people I considered to be capable and reasonable dismissed it, I would be more likely to accept it, but just one person's disagreemnt (a person I know nothing about) or dismissal is not enough for me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker.

Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.

 

[WWGD]

Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.

From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these. Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.

 

[zoobyshoe]

From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these.

This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.

Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.

I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.

 

[WWGD]

This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.

I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.

So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.

I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:

In 1972 (during Grinder's stint at UCSC) Richard Bandler, an undergraduate student of psychology, approached him for assistance in specific aspects of modelingGestalt therapy. Bandler, along with good friend Frank Pucelik, had spent much time recording and editing recordings of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy) and had learned Gestalt therapy implicitly during intense group sessions. After some time, Grinder was invited to participate in group discussions. Although at first Grinder sat quietly, he eventually approached Bandler and Pucelik with some observations and questions. Grinder left a lasting impression on Pucelik and was later dubbed 'the real genius'.[12] Bandler and Pucelik invited Grinder to team-up eventually creating a very close group. Although Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik were the main driving force, there were several other students at the university who contributed ‘a hell of a lot’ according to Pucelik.[12] In the end, hours of unpaid research significantly aided the formation of Meta - modern day NLP.

From there Grinder and Bandler modeled the various cognitive behavioral patterns of therapists such as Perls, a leading figure in family therapy Virginia Satir and later the leading figure in hypnosis in psychiatry Milton Erickson. As a result, The Structure of Magic Volumes I & II (1975, 1976), Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II (1975, 1977) and Changing With Families (1976) were published. This work formed the basis of the methodology that became the foundation of neuro-linguistic programming.

NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:

In an earlier review of the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the present author (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1984-21020-001 ) concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. In their comment on that review, E. L. Einspruch and B. D. Forman (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1986-08199-001 ) agreed with this conclusion but suggested that it was due to the presence of methodological errors in the research on NLP to date and that the efficacy of NLP was open to debate. In the present article, it is contended that those suggestions were based on misconceptions regarding the factors that limit the methodological worth of research. Several of the detailed criticisms from that review are refuted, and data from 7 recent studies that further demonstrate that research data do not support either the basic tenets of NLP or their application in counseling situations are presented. Implications for the use of NLP in counseling research or clinical practice are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:

This is only a very small sampling of current research studies that support various aspects of NLP practice and methodology, and more appear each week. There is a lot of research that supports NLP principles, but it is not identified as such. If all these studies were collected into a review article, it would provide quite impressive support. Meanwhile, a few of us continue to explore the boundaries of what we already know and can do.

And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.

 

[WWGD]

I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:

NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:
The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:

And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.

My battery was dying and I could not surf well; I will look it up latter. Going through the training alone can at best show that the training is done poorly, and that it may have become over -commercialized. When you say that one member has training, have you looked up the background of all the authors? Sorry, I need to be out for now, I cannot address points for a while.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Going through the training alone can at best show that the training is done poorly, and that it may have become over -commercialized.

But that would be indicative of the fact the whole training course was invented as a product, with the intention of earning money, as opposed to being a school of psychology intended to help people. NLP basically offers psychological superpowers to anyone who takes the course, and that is it's appeal. It's not science, but something in the same category as Tony Robbins and the other "motivational speakers." Each of those people has a 'grab-bag' of, probably sound, psychological tools to get people to try, but really the point is for Tony Robbins to earn a good living.

When you say that one member has training, have you looked up the background of all the authors?

I did a quick, (and apparently sloppy) wiki read on the main two. From previous reading, though, I know it's essentially Milton Erickson based. Meaning, they did not study neuroscience and also linguistics, and then perceive a pattern to be elaborated on. They studied Erickson, and then glued together some words (neuro + linguistics) to make his seat-of-the-pants flying seem like it was based in science.

But your original point was not that they were qualified to say how scientific Erickson was. Rather, you were casting Derren Brown as unqualified to debunk NLP. That is something like casting Houdini as unqualified to debunk the seance because he had no theological training, hence no proper grasp of the Spirit Realm. Derren Brown's qualifications are, that he, himself, is a professional demonstrator of "psychological superpowers." As a hypnotist/magician/manipulator-by-psychology, he knows all the tricks when he sees them. As did Houdini.

 

[WWGD]

But that would be indicative of the fact the whole training course was invented as a product, with the intention of earning money, as opposed to being a school of psychology intended to help people. NLP basically offers psychological superpowers to anyone who takes the course, and that is it's appeal. It's not science, but something in the same category as Tony Robbins and the other "motivational speakers." Each of those people has a 'grab-bag' of, probably sound, psychological tools to get people to try, but really the point is for Tony Robbins to earn a good living.I did a quick, (and apparently sloppy) wiki read on the main two. From previous reading, though, I know it's essentially Milton Erickson based. Meaning, they did not study neuroscience and also linguistics, and then perceive a pattern to be elaborated on. They studied Erickson, and then glued together some words (neuro + linguistics) to make his seat-of-the-pants flying seem like it was based in science.

But your original point was not that they were qualified to say how scientific Erickson was. Rather, you were casting Derren Brown as unqualified to debunk NLP. That is something like casting Houdini as unqualified to debunk the seance because he had no theological training, hence no proper grasp of the Spirit Realm. Derren Brown's qualifications are, that he, himself, is a professional demonstrator of "psychological superpowers." As a hypnotist/magician/manipulator-by-psychology, he knows all the tricks when he sees them. As did Houdini.

Derren Brown may have at best proven that the course he took was taught by a scammer. One person, one course taken. T Besides, there is a difference IMO between the theory, the implementation and the " implementers" . A poorly taught class in, e.g., French Cuisine does not show that French Cuisine is lousy. I don't know how you can so casually IMO conclude that the whole thing was put together in such a way to make it seem like it is based in science; I have read some of the texts put out by Bandler, Dilts, etc. , and they do make specific scientific claims (by which I mean scientifically-testable statements, whether valid or not), which are based on assessments of neurological bases for certain types of behaviors, and describing behavior by sequences of neurological reactions. This may not hold up scientifically, i.e. , may not be reproducible, but it is laid out in such a way as to be testable by science.
I suspect that some on the business side of operations decided to package the whole deal in an oversimplified way to the general public, describing the end product without explaining how/why it works, whether the real thing does or does not work. The business end often vulgarizes and frankly some times flat out cheats in order to increase sales. You cannot blame that on a faulty theory underlying NLP.

EDIT: NLP makes specific claims. I don't have the training to test the accuracy of the claims but I do think I have enough training to determine that the claims made are testable.

EDIT2 : I think we are at a stalemate and I suggest we leave it here, I don't see how we can really move forward.

 

[lisab]

I can lose myself looking at maps.

 

[WWGD]

I was asked to remove my ski mask while at B&N. This is a sub-ground level store, with mechanical stairs. Does anyone really think I am going to stick up a store with around 100 customers in the cafe, then go up two flights of mechanical stairs (with people in the stairs) to leave the store? On top of that, instead of regular security, they have an actual city cop patrolling (which is weird, since I don't know if he is acting in his capacity as a cop or as a security guard.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

EDIT2 : I think we are at a stalemate and I suggest we leave it here, I don't see how we can really move forward.

Let me have a last word: Derren Brown isn't the only NLP critic:
http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html

 

[HomogenousCow]

Bank account application was rejected due to credit score. Thing is I haven't borrowed a cent in my life, never even had an account in my name. What the hell.

 

[Ibix]

It could be your bank being odd (there are, I think, occasional peculiar behaviours in their credit scoring systems). However, I'm sorry to say that just because you haven't borrowed money in your name doesn't mean that no-one has. You might want to check your credit record. At least in the UK it's pretty straightforward to do.

 

[HomogenousCow]

It could be your bank being odd (there are, I think, occasional peculiar behaviours in their credit scoring systems). However, I'm sorry to say that just because you haven't borrowed money in your name doesn't mean that no-one has. You might want to check your credit record. At least in the UK it's pretty straightforward to do.

Tried doing that, they asked for my credit card number which doesn't exist. Being a Chinese citizen, I don't see how it's possible for someone here to steal my identity and borrow money. (currently studying in the UK)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Bank account application was rejected due to credit score. Thing is I haven't borrowed a cent in my life, never even had an account in my name. What the hell.

Tried doing that, they asked for my credit card number which doesn't exist. Being a Chinese citizen, I don't see how it's possible for someone here to steal my identity and borrow money. (currently studying in the UK)

I think I see the problem. "Due to credit score," probably means, in your case, you have no credit score. You are a credit risk because you're a credit unknown.

 

[HomogenousCow]

I think I see the problem. "Due to credit score," probably means, in your case, you have no credit score. You are a credit risk because you're a credit unknown.

I'm so confused, can't they just deny any loans if I ask from them? I just need an account to receive money.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm so confused, can't they just deny any loans if I ask from them? I just need an account to receive money.

I think the problem is that a credit card account can be linked directly to a bank account such that items charged on the card are automatically paid for from the bank account. That is: the monthly credit card bill is automatically paid from the bank account. I believe that's actually what most people do. So, a person can exceed their credit limit without the bank being consulted. Therefore, they want people with a solid history of paying off their credit card bill.

The risk for them here is that, if they give you a bank account, you might then go out and get a credit card and link it to that account and then overextend your credit.

 

[Ibix]

I take it you've just moved countries, in which case I agree with Zooby's analysis.

The UK has a requirement that banks provide a "Basic Account" expressly for people lacking a credit history (or with a loooong one) who still need to get paid electronically. You can pay money in by all the usual means, but you can only get cash in the bank or an ATM. No credit/debit card, no overdraft, and no direct debits (I think). Don't know if the US has something similar.

 

[HomogenousCow]

I take it you've just moved countries, in which case I agree with Zooby's analysis.

The UK has a requirement that banks provide a "Basic Account" expressly for people lacking a credit history (or with a loooong one) who still need to get paid electronically. You can pay money in by all the usual means, but you can only get cash in the bank or an ATM. No credit/debit card, no overdraft, and no direct debits (I think). Don't know if the US has something similar.

I guess I'll get one of those, borrow small sums of money, sit on it and then give it back for credit score.

 

[WWGD]

I guess I'll get one of those, borrow small sums of money, sit on it and then give it back for credit score.

Or buy something that does not cost much on credit and pay it on time. They may give you a credit line if the amount is not too high.

 

[HomogenousCow]

Or buy something that does not cost much on credit and pay it on time. They may give you a credit line if the amount is not too high.

You know, how is it that one can't just keep borrowing small amounts of money for very short periods of time to steadily increase their credit score? I imagine you could probably get a small loan for a day or something.

EDIT: Just realized that's what a credit card allows you to do

 

[WWGD]

You know, how is it that one can't just keep borrowing small amounts of money for very short periods of time to steadily increase their credit score? I imagine you could probably get a small loan for a day or something.

EDIT: Just realized that's what does a credit card allows you to do

I wish I knew more about it to offer a solution, sorry, I have been fortunate to not have problems despite rarely borrowing or buying on credit. But, yes, maybe getting a credit card and paying it on time will also help.

 

[fresh_42]

Shouldn't someone start a thread where we can make fun of what is written elsewhere in the serious ones? I just read a new one titled: "What is pressure?" - I have at least three answers in mind which of all are not suitable to be posted ... And that happens often. @andrewkirk asked today for the conclusion "living in Sydney implies living in Australia". Hell, that has been difficult to form an answer around Nova Scotia.

 

[WWGD]

Shouldn't someone start a thread where we can make fun of what is written elsewhere in the serious ones? I just read a new one titled: "What is pressure?" - I have at least three answers in mind which of all are not suitable to be posted ... And that happens often. @andrewkirk asked today for the conclusion "living in Sydney implies living in Australia". Hell, that has been difficult to form an answer around Nova Scotia.

There was an apartment complex around here called the Sydney apartments. And, just in case, there is a Melbourne in Florida.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You know, how is it that one can't just keep borrowing small amounts of money for very short periods of time to steadily increase their credit score? I imagine you could probably get a small loan for a day or something.

EDIT: Just realized that's what a credit card allows you to do

For years I only used my credit card to pay for one bill a month, my internet dial up service, which was less than $30.00 US. The fact I always paid on time earned me some sort of spectacular credit rating. My credit limit was raised, and every other credit card wanted me to get one of theirs. It is not the amount, it's your dependability they care about. I guess unreliable people demonstrate they are unreliable with even small amounts.

Regardless, I would get one of those "basic accounts" Ibix referred to. That sounds much simpler.

 

[fresh_42]

There was an apartment complex ...

Did you realize you threw the next pass to be caught?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Shouldn't someone start a thread where we can make fun of what is written elsewhere in the serious ones?

There is, in fact, just such a thread. That is not it's express purpose, but it can easily be bent to that purpose. It used to be a healthy and thriving thread, but something strange happened at PF a while back and the people with no sense of humor somehow came to greatly exceed those with a sense of humor. The last great PF humorist, JimmySnyder, (JimmySnider?) departed PF one day a few years back, never to be seen again, leaving only the words, "PF is stupid." in his wake.

PF used to be an hysterically funny place. People often even made wise cracks in the serious forums now and then.

 

[HomogenousCow]

There is, in fact, just such a thread. That is not it's express purpose, but it can easily be bent to that purpose. It used to be a healthy and thriving thread, but something strange happened at PF a while back and the people with no sense of humor somehow came to greatly exceed those with a sense of humor. The last great PF humorist, JimmySnyder, (JimmySnider?) departed PF one day a few years back, never to be seen again, leaving only the words, "PF is stupid." in his wake.

PF used to be an hysterically funny place. People often even made wise cracks in the serious forums now and then.

This one time someone was trying to present a personal theory when he posted a link which lead to a 404 page, to which someone replied

"I too have stared at the 404 page and wondered about its significance"
I guess it was more funny at time.

 

[fresh_42]

I understand that it's hard to keep trolls out or to avoid drifting into pure comic. However, sometimes I got the impression that the slightest funny remark would have led to immediate deletion. It somehow comforts me that I'm not the only one who is delighted by a good joke from time to time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We had a pretty heavy rain this afternoon. There were a few new rivers in the neighborhood for a while, and I understand other parts of the city got flooded. Another big storm expected tomorrow.

 

[fresh_42]

Another idea for a thread: "Things I haven't said." (I just deleted: I guess we still have to wait for another Ramanujan.)
If I remember right it was Bernard Shaw who has been asked to be a little more polite in answering a letter and he replied: "You should have read what I didn't write by politeness."

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I deleted my post because I find it is like a word salad and have incorrect conclusions about mental disorders.

 

[fresh_42]

I deleted my post because I find it is like a word salad and have incorrect conclusions about mental disorders.

I didn't mind the mental disorders. Guess it's kind of a professional disease. But the rest was interesting: I love Dadaism.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

I didn't mind the mental disorders. Guess it's kind of a professional disease. But the rest was interesting: I love Dadaism.

It's an inspiration for image processing in suspense and horror movies.

 

[WWGD]

I never really got into the show " How I met Your Mother" . Too bad, because it is on at least 5 times daily. It is the type of show I almost like but I never end up really getting into. I prefer " Two and a Half Men" , which seems to be on much less often.

 

[fresh_42]

Here they have both in a seemingly endless loop. I don't like neither. It's like "Sex and the city" for boys. Not even near own experiences.

 

[WWGD]

Here they have both in a seemingly endless loop. I don't like neither. It's like "Sex and the city" for boys. Not even near own experiences.

I wish my life was more like Charlie's. For many (possibly including me, to some degree) , it is about living the life by proxy, although there is a kind of dark underside to the show . I wish there had more episodes; it seems these shows only put out around 20 episodes per year, for totals at around 200, so the repeats start hapenning relatively soon. Do you like " Old Christine"?

 

[fresh_42]

Do you like " Old Christine"?

I have only seen a few. But the answer is yes.

 

[andrewkirk]

I just read a new one titled: "What is pressure?"

That reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.
Keith Miller was a great Australian cricketer who played in the late forties and fifties, and was also a pilot for the RAF in the second world war.
One day a sports journalist asked him how he handled the pressure of going out to bat in front of tens of thousands of fans. His answer was something like:
'Pressure? That's not pressure! Pressure is having a Messerschmidt up your arse!'

 

[WWGD]

That reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.
Keith Miller was a great Australian cricketer who played in the late forties and fifties, and was also a pilot for the RAF in the second world war.
One day a sports journalist asked him how he handled the pressure of going out to bat in front of tens of thousands of fans. His answer was something like:
'Pressure? That's not pressure! Pressure is having a Messerschmidt up your arse!'

Reggie Jackson, a Baseball player, was asked, before an important game, how much pressure he was feeling. He said: " 200 feet per square inch, at sea level".

 

[Silicon Waffle]

... He said: " 200 feet per square inch, at sea level".

Google is getting sensitive. I highlight "200 feet per square inch" and right click my mouse to look up the phrase in google. The search results displayed are different from those being shown when I do for the same phrase with just an extra comma at the end of it, that is, "200 feet per square inch,"

 

[WWGD]

Google is getting sensitive. I highlight "200 feet per square inch" and right click my mouse to look up the phrase in google. The search results displayed are different from those being shown when I do for the same phrase with just an extra comma at the end of it, that is, "200 feet per square inch,"

Maybe because I made a mistake. It should be 200 pounds per square inch, or 200 pounds per square feet. Otherwise what I wrote does not make much if any sense. And the quote may be made up; I read it in a book and did not hear it personally.

 

[andrewkirk]

It should be 200 pounds per square inch, or 200 pounds per square feet. Otherwise what I wrote does not make much if any sense.

I'm glad that's been cleared up, because I was reluctant to ask, for fear of revealing my ignorance. I wasn't sure whether the story was (1) about Reggie Jackson mocking the silly question he had been asked, or (2) Reggie Jackson revealing how little he understood about physics or (3) something to do with the height of a column of mercury or alcohol (but then I couldn't see how the 'per square inch' fitted in).

 

[WWGD]

I'm glad that's been cleared up, because I was reluctant to ask, for fear of revealing my ignorance. I wasn't sure whether the story was (1) about Reggie Jackson mocking the silly question he had been asked, or (2) Reggie Jackson revealing how little he understood about physics or (3) something to do with the height of a column of mercury or alcohol (but then I couldn't see how the 'per square inch' fitted in).

If you want one about ignorant statements, we had a basketball player who said he would do more than a 180 turn on his team, he would help his team do a full 360 turn on its performance. You know, if a 180 turn is a big deal, imagine doing a full 360!
EDIT: It was Jason Kidd, who wanted to turn his team around 360 degrees:

http://www.vh1.com/photos/gallery/?fid=1541125&pid=1610910

See top quote.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm glad that's been cleared up, because I was reluctant to ask, for fear of revealing my ignorance. I wasn't sure whether the story was (1) about Reggie Jackson mocking the silly question he had been asked, or (2) Reggie Jackson revealing how little he understood about physics or (3) something to do with the height of a column of mercury or alcohol (but then I couldn't see how the 'per square inch' fitted in).

I'm obviously a simple minded person. I just thought (4) wrong, but I know what's been meant

 

[fresh_42]

If you want one about ignorant statements, we had a basketball player who said he would do more than a 180 turn on his team, he would help his team do a full 360 turn on its performance. You know, if a 180 turn is a big deal, imagine doing a full 360!
EDIT: It was Jason Kidd, who wanted to turn his team around 360 degrees:

http://www.vh1.com/photos/gallery/?fid=1541125&pid=1610910

See top quote.

Did he succeed?

Sportsmen are famous for telling non-sense. A famous quote of a football (soccer, grrr...) player here says: "Madrid, Milan, ... main thing is Italy!" Or: "The paramedic immediately laid me an invasion."
There is even a website for it.