This is a lingering claim that despite many, many requests for evidence to back up the statement none ever comes forward. This is YOUR chance to save me £2000 I am going to spend on my Master Practitioner course and to show my gratitide I am prepared to give you half of the money I save by not doing the course.

SAVE ME FROM WASTING £2000 AND I'LL GIVE YOU HALF OF MY SAVINGS!!

I am not interested in following links to peoples opinions. Evidence must be posted directly into the forum page.

I am not interested in having a procrastinated debate with people. We are dealing with factual evidence only here, not opinions.

Simply, show me the evidence that NLP is pseudoscientific and new age.

Thanks,

Matt

Why not earn £1000 by proving NLP is NOT a pseudoscience and new age
Can it work under scientific scrutiny...again and again?
Anyone?

New age, the term itself is a contradiction; a new age religion is classed as paganism or Wicca, crystal healing is also considered “new age” but these practises have been going on for thousands of years, what does “new age” mean anyway? Or am I being slow?

emma-kelly wrote:

New age, the term itself is a contradiction; a new age religion is classed as paganism or Wicca, crystal healing is also considered “new age” but these practises have been going on for thousands of years, what does “new age” mean anyway? Or am I being slow?

No emma you are not slow... New Age is an umberella term for a number of beliefs and practices that are considered outside of the accepted hallucination of the majority we call "normal" (what ever that is anyway.

Some of the new age stuff claims to have been practiced for thousands of years like wicca or witchcraft but the rituals we have now are actually a modern phenomona and are very similar in form and substance to masonic rituals.

I know where matt is going with his post and why he used the terms he did and I am avidly awaiting a response.... although if it is not he one I hope I am just going to let my own internal congitive dissonance win cause I am a fully paid up member of the Cult of NLP.....PMSL

Jason

Redsimo wrote:

This is a lingering claim that despite many, many requests for evidence to back up the statement none ever comes forward. This is YOUR chance to save me £2000 I am going to spend on my Master Practitioner course and to show my gratitide I am prepared to give you half of the money I save by not doing the course.

SAVE ME FROM WASTING £2000 AND I'LL GIVE YOU HALF OF MY SAVINGS!!

I am not interested in following links to peoples opinions. Evidence must be posted directly into the forum page.

I am not interested in having a procrastinated debate with people. We are dealing with factual evidence only here, not opinions.

Simply, show me the evidence that NLP is pseudoscientific and new age.

Thanks,

Matt

Nice one, Matt.

Have you thought about extending your invitation to the media? Might make an interesting talking point and open up discussion while the MPs are on a 'well-earned break'. This has legs, as they say.

Sorry Matt, I can make more than £1,000 if I continue to pedal NLP. You'll have to up your offer if you want the "opposition prep" version.

Emma/Jason - New Age refers to the Age of Aquarius, which I think will last something like 2,000 years. So it's basically a way of chunking time differently, to give you a different perspective on "our" "evolution".

New Age refers to many things. A movement, a spiritual approach, a community, a timespan etc

... don't know about the rest of you but I have yet to see an actual scientific study published in any journal or website that specifically researched NLP showing any kind of results (positive or negative) --

I hate to be the one to break this to you Matt, but it looks like you might just have to waste the money and enjoy the benefits like the rest of us ... sorry dude.

chris_morris wrote:

Emma/Jason - New Age refers to the Age of Aquarius, which I think will last something like 2,000 years. So it's basically a way of chunking time differently, to give you a different perspective on "our" "evolution".

The astrological ages are said to last 2150 years and the exact timings of the ages are open to wide debate the age of aquarius has been perported to to start somewhere between 1440ad and 3620ad I agree this is supposed to be a new age and has been linked with a change in our values but the term has been used as an umbrella for esoteric beliefs and practices for quite some time... New Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and I think that possibly the distinction between the two have blurred...

Matt, spend the money move further into the cult immerse yourself we love you buddy!

Why all the so negatives here to this question? It's a competition!

I could use the 1K to get some NLP training and could I give i a shot? Is there a time limit, and if I'm the only one who gives an astute acceptable answer does that make me win?

SO you already got the question wrong already, !ST of all, NLP is not a pseudoscience because it's a placebo!

Redsimo wrote:

This is a lingering claim that despite many, many requests for evidence to back up the statement none ever comes forward. This is YOUR chance to save me £2000 I am going to spend on my Master Practitioner course and to show my gratitide I am prepared to give you half of the money I save by not doing the course.

SAVE ME FROM WASTING £2000 AND I'LL GIVE YOU HALF OF MY SAVINGS!!

I am not interested in following links to peoples opinions. Evidence must be posted directly into the forum page.

I am not interested in having a procrastinated debate with people. We are dealing with factual evidence only here, not opinions.

Simply, show me the evidence that NLP is pseudoscientific and new age.

Thanks,

Matt

Matt,

Great initiative and idea.. and my question is "can I film it please?" as I am currently studying film making.

First you need to make a falsifiable claim to test it which just the word NLP isn't unfortunately. You can't test NLP only some of claims of processes that are proposed.

What are the concrete claims that are being proposed if you took your master prac? Will the organisation you aim to train with supply some of these? I could also help you turn their syllabus into a variety of verifiable and falsifable claims if you like.

A classic silly example of an unfalsifiable claim is "there are faeries at the bottom of my garden but they only come out when no one is looking". That is not falsifiable so doesn't count.

Got to get back to the studio now.. please say yes!

John

Another one,

Simply dis-validate or say 'go away' to your belief or evidence that NLP is not pseudoscientific, see if that doesn't get you to where you want to be. So that would make it a NLP placebo crime?

Disvalidate or whack away those yeast bugs evidence enough or multiple times, fearlessly.

Hand that 1K over now.

Giulio,

If you find anyone offering that deal then I will be putting myself forward as a candidate, however, that is not the deal.

Pretty Pretty Emma,

Maybe you are wrong, maybe everyone else is wrong and you are right. Even if that is the case they will still say you are wrong and you will believe you are wrong. Maybe I agree with you and I say you are right but we still may both be wrong.

Jason,

Thanks for the love, back at you buddy. If being involved in NLP is wrong then I don't wanna be right!

Ben,

I copied and pasted the thread title into Google and learnt that items on this site get posted in all kinds of places. Who knows where this will go?

Chris,

I see, like that is it. Its better to be inside the train pissing out than outside of the train being pissed on? You keep peddling that happpiness drug-free drug, one day people will realise that mental freedom and happiness are immoral and wrong.

Helm,

Thanks for the post, any evidence to back you claims up? Normally I'd be happy to chat the night away with you while the missus complains about havng to pee too many times or that her back aches but in this thread I am all about the evidence. Sorry.

Daniel,

You got it spot on buddy. The evidence that there is no evidence is here. All that money wasted on fun, happiness, becoming better at my job, my life and future dad. I guess those 'science bods' don't want a £1000, I didnt think that a little cut and pasting to earn the cash was a bad deal, is it?

John,

Of course YES! But you are scaring me with your logical approach!

Mike,

I was reaching for my cheque book but the I remembered one of the rules. Opinions dont count, not even my opinon counts here. Factual evidence only, sorry mate.

Redsimo wrote:

John,

Of course YES! But you are scaring me with your logical approach!

Mike,

I was reaching for my cheque book but the I remembered one of the rules. Opinions dont count, not even my opinon counts here. Factual evidence only, sorry mate.

Factual evidence only.. Well let's make some factual evidence then because that's what it'd be! If we design the test well between us and both agree its fair then I can afford to be impartial because I will get juicy footage no matter the outcome. Other wise its not real, a bit like fake wrestling.

Yes you can make money by pushing new age pseudoscience. It’s called hucksterism and charlatanry. The facts have been posted before, I have just collated them here, so send your money to a worthy charity or save it up for something that isn’t a likely new age pseudoscience. The original neurolinguistic programming books are as new age as you can get, and they tend to be included in new age bookstores and shelves. Neurolinguistic programming adheres to the notion of the power of the subconscious mind, the principle of created realities, and takes a passive aggressive approach to science. Rather than deal with maintaining a sort of homeostasis during tough times (the rational approach to coping), neurolinguistic programming promises the unlocking of human potential and general amazingness (and fails). Neurolinguistic programming was originally modeled upon three new age heros – Perls (a human potential movement founder and resident of the new age center Esalen), Satir the new age hippy of group therapy (also Esalen), and Erikson the man who hucksters and hippies have built a garland of new age mindpower myths for ever since the 60s. Neurolinguistic programming is a fake name which makes is pseudoscientific. Neuro means nerves, yet NLP purports to deal with cognitive stuff. Neuro was an attractive sounding term to use at the time. It seems to have been chosen to falsely market something, rather than be an accurate claim of mechanism. NLP has nothing to do with linguistics. The subject of linguistics was always well in advance of the language parts of NLP. Grinder must have been on acid when he wrote the linguistics part of NLP, because the claims do not match the research. Look it up! Neurolinguistics is a seriously researched subject that offers real and evidence based interventions to deal with real neural problems that impact the language ability and function. NLP proponents tend to dislike the use of psychiatry and surgical interventions, even though they have proven benefits. Programming in NLP is supposed to imply conscious change to the way we function. However, there is no evidence we can be programmed like computers. Fancy title that implies easy effortless change in self and others. It’s another wild claim! Neurolinguistic programming exhibits most if not all of the identifying characteristics of a pseudoscience. NLP concepts and claims are wild to say the least. Amazing claims require amazing evidence. Amazing means independent and reliable evidence (evidence actually show NLP concepts and interventions have failed overall). NLP proponents exhibit the need for and adherence to scientific credibility, yet they dismiss science when it disagrees with NLP concepts and shows NLP to be a failure in practice. NLP proponents try to move the goal posts whenever NLP fails, which effectively makes neurolinguistic programming untestable. If it involves inflated claims to efficacy and is untestable then it is pseudoscience. NLP proponents adhere to wholism whenever something fails the test. They tend to overuse testimonial and dismiss proper testing. They jump on any confirming evidence regardless of how weak, and avoid disconfirmation. NLP proponents, when criticized, tend to demand proof that NLP doesn’t work. You cannot prove a negative. Lots of nonNLP concepts have been found to be valid and lots of methods work according to testing. NLP’s terms and concepts have not shown face or construct validity, and its methods have failed proper testing. There is an absence of progress in NLP. The eye accessing cues stuff overwhelmingly failed testing back in the 80s, yet the diagrams still appear in the new books, and the new code still includes it. NLP is now used as an example of an archetypal pseudoscience to help undergraduate students understand the difference between science and new age pseudoscience. There are many more facts that indicate neurolinguistic programming is a new age pseudoscience. You can probably get most of them by looking at the adverts.

Interesting opinions, evidence only please.

I wonder if David is a double agent. People tend to rally and solidify their position when given something to fight against. He is rather repetitive and evades revealing questions which is a bit strange if the intention was to actually educate.

I think that this is more near the mark and I am as guilty of feeding them as anyone.... Maybe we chould have a fine system for feeding wild ones.....lol

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find the challenge offered to be interesting and at the same time puzzling.