Anyone who performs a serious investigation into the credentials of Chuck Spezzano will realize he has been operating for decades allowing himself as to be merchandised as something he is not and has never been-- a psychologist, and that Psychology of Vision is a for-profit scam populated by non-professionals. Please explore our blog for more details.
In 2010 a gentleman in the UK named Matthew Blythe, a friend of Psychology of Vision, attempted to create a Wikipedia entry for Chuck Spezzano but to Wikipedia's credit this honor was denied. Chuck Spezzano is a follower who has used the same money-making formula for years, a shouter in the New Age commercial echo chamber, an unlicensed and unregulated amateur, not a leader or original thinker.
The document below chronicles the Wikipedia discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattblythe
[Below: printable pages to download--- ]
9 comments:
Well, so much for being internationally acclaimed and world renowned.
Actually it a shame Spezzano and Psychology of Vision are not in Wikipedia ... that way their scam technique and misinformation would get more exposure and maybe, finally, there would be some consequences.
Blythe probably meant well, but he is not an official trainer for POV. I don't believe an official trainer could have done this without permission from the Spezzanos, and they do not want information out there that they cannot manage. A Wikipedia entry would have meant other non-POV people could have added more fact-based information and we can't have that, can we? That would upset the world view the Spezzanos have so carefully invented, a view that includes a large funnel for cash to flow into their bank account.
Want to see a Wikipedia entry on Chuck Spezzano? Merely look up the word "charlatan" and you see all you need to know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
I imagine Chuck Spezzano will one day earn an entry in Wikipedia, but not for reasons that he would choose.
Spezzano is indeed a con artist, but only a small time con artist. Hence, no Wikipedia entry.
Gotta love Wikipedia's response to Matt:
"Secondly, the individual may not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Please note that Wikipedia notability and 'real-world' notability are not the same."
and
"You seem to have missed the point of Wikipedia notability. It has nothing to do with my knowledge or lack of knowledge of the subject. If you had read WP:BIO as I suggested, you would have seen that Wikipedia notability is based on criteria in WP:BIO supported by reliable sources."
WP:BIO includes:
"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note' – that is, 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. 'Notable' in the sense of being 'famous' or 'popular' – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
Lency and Christopher Spezzano have quoted Wikipedia frequently, so apparently they feel it is a valid academic source, although many critical thinking people do not. O the irony!
This demonstrates Spezzano is a big flabby fish in a very small and shrinking pond. He never has come up with anything original, all of his blathering has been swiped from someone else, usually a few notches behind the curve. Hardly "cutting edge."
Chuck Spezzano is a small time flim flam man. Of course he is not worthy of Wikipedia.
In defense of Spezzano I must say Wikipedia is not a valid academic source. As a former college faculty I would not allow it to be cited as a reliable citation.
But on the other side of the coin, I would not allow Spezzano himself to be cited as a valid academic source either. His "research" has never been presented in a professional forum and his business conduct has been dishonest. His corporation lacks integrity.
Since I don't want my tires slashed or to be cyber-stalked like others who have spoken up, I will remain anonymous. POV is a cult.
Post a Comment
This is an inactive blog, comments can be contributed but might languish for a spell before moderation.