LOL Hal!! Case of great minds thinking alike?
Actually I think we both have the same view on this - for me I spent a lot of time in a cult where everything that went right was,, of course, thanks to the fearless leader. For a long time after I got out I still, once in a while, thought to myself - "well at least..." and I finally realized that there was nothing that I had learned from being in that cult that I could not have learned elsewhere and avoided the huge personal price I paid.
Mick
Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigita
the same time? ;-)
On Thursday 23 August 2007, mick wenlock wrote:
> HI Jenn (AND PIPER OF COURSE !)
>
> I think you are doing something which is fairly common among cult
> survivors. I use the word "cult" deliberately of course.
>
> You say that you are the salesperson you are today because of "thing
> which must not be named" - the trouble is, how do you know that to be
> the case?
"thing which must not be named" Are you talk about Lord Voldemort? ;-)
Yes, though, this is a good point. It's as if there's a need to
say, "It's not all bad." While it's true that we can pick up something
from most experiences that will help us, I do wonder if the need to
claim such an experience provided some of these other things could be a
way of not dealing with all the problems it has caused in one's life
and coming to terms with all of that.
> Could it be that you are the salesperson you are today because you
> are a strong individual who could learn the techniques of
> salesmanship? Is it not because of who you are and what you are
> capable of that you have become as good as you are?
>
> I offer this as proof - if Quixtar/Amway?
> your ability now - wouldn't that mean you would be an exploitive
> manipulator as well as being a good salesperson?
I've learned good sales tactics. What Quackstar uses is not really good
tactics. I'd have to go with Mick on this. If you were to stick with
all their sales tactics, you'd be the kind of annoying sales person
most of us run from when we're buying a car.
> This is, it strikes me, a case of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"
> fallacy. Which is a fancy way of saying that it is mistake to assume
> that just because one thing preceded another that it must be the
> cause of it.
>
> I suspect that you have become a good salesperson in spite of
> Quixtar, not because of it.
Agreed. 100%.
Hal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment