Hi James T

Again, you seem to be missing the whole point of the thread: To work deliberately with those who strongly question NLP (assumption questioning) in order to move forward productively.

Your current approach seems to be to ignore those who hold different points of view from yourself and to focus on confirmation bias instead.

You seem to be stuck on critique, or you are incapable of dealing with views that oppose your own. Despite the claims that people make about NLP and the flexibility it is supposed to lead to, you and some others here do seem to be pretty retarded in terms of ability to think and explore.

I have chosen a De Bono approach (six hats mostly) in order to move forward positively. There are alternatives including brainstorming in general, imagery provocation, metaphoric provocation, and the use of other attention directing tools.

Rich

Ok, just re-pasting the alternatives yet again

If anyone wants to do a critique of Novella, perhaps you could start another thread

But with this thread in mind, to move forward in parallel with those who hold opposing views from NLP people:



Determine which elements are pseudoscience, and design a way forward from there.

Move to a non-pseudoscientific intervention framework/or combine with one

Move it to less sciencecostume state (move it away from pretending to be scientific)

Start afresh completely, (blank slate NLP)



Feel free to re-phrase those broad alternative avenues if you don't like the way they are phrased, model from the knowledge and concerns of those opposing scientists, and feel free to explore the possibilities.



Rich

RmtView wrote:

The complaint is that NLP is dressed up as science, even though its not science. Which makes it pseudoscientific.

Hi Rich

I Have to ask:

"Is all NLP dressed up as science?"

"Dressed up by whom?"

I agree that some people uses 'science spin' for marketing purposes (just as they do in the cosmetics industry), but this is a case of the marketing being psuedoscientific, not of NLP being pseudoscientific.

RmtView wrote:

Following on from your suggestion, it sounds like there could be several practical ways to do that:

Remove jargon
Replace jargon with accurate terms
Remove wild claims
Replace them with accurate claims about efficacy

So, representational system could be replaced with "sense". Submodality could be replaced with something like "Imagery change/image manipulation"

Are you saying that only sciences and psuedosciences use 'jargon'?

Seriously?

Just to shift position here, I'm am curious as to why you feel NLP so needs the validation of its skeptics?

Is it NLP that needs validation, or is it you, Rich?

Please forgive me if that question is too personal.


All the very best

James

RmtView wrote:

Again, you seem to be missing the whole point of the thread: To work deliberately with those who strongly question NLP (assumption questioning) in order to move forward productively.

Hey Rich

Perhaps you will get a warmer reception here on the forum when you become willing to work deliberately with those who strongly question your view (assumption questioning) in order to move forward productively.

James

James

There is a view that NLP is dressed up as science ""NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics" (Prof Corballis 1999).

I am doing what NLP people claim they can do. I am placing myself in the position of people such as prof Corballis, Novella, and so on so that I can see their point of view. I am not doing it via NLP modeling because I need a meta (or outside NLP)-view. I have taken the approach of de Bono, to look at the actual information and background mental model of those people.

This is pretty standard stuff in RnD. Ok, it doesn't work with wall-eyed cult worshipers. Clearly that is a problem within NLP that needs a solution design as it seems to be systemic. Luckilly there is at least a minority of NLP people who are not so biased towards brainless confirmation.


The idea is to think in parallel with those who take an opposing view, and move forward with it productively, rather than stay stuck forever fibrilating in criticism of the opposition.

So far on this thread there have been some ideas generated to deal in some way with Corballis' concern, and some of Novella's concerns. You probably missed them.

Have another look through the thread, and have a go at generating ideas along any of those broad avenues of possibility, and please try to use the two general views (you already know the general NLP view, you will need to use and empathise with the general opposing view and understand its background knowledge model, you could even use other relevant views such as those from neurolinguistics, sociology of religion, and linguistics).

Rich

RmtView wrote:

I am doing what NLP people claim they can do. I am placing myself in the position of people such as prof Corballis, Novella, and so on so that I can see their point of view.

'Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat you like an equal.' - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Ok Philip

You believe Novella et al are dumbshits. So why bother even posting here?

Is something scaring you so much that you want other people to stop exploring it?

Rich

Ok, another avenue

How about a combination strategy?:

Combine with a self-help movement or development that is not pseudoscientific.

There are some around, though there are definitely plenty of pseudoscientific ones to avoid. Any preferences there?

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Ok Philip

You believe Novella et al are dumbshits. So why bother even posting here? Is something scaring you so much that you want other people to stop exploring it?

Rich

You were looking for a way to interface with your skeptic heroes, I just suggested a method. Take it or leave it. Oh wait, you've already taken it.

Ok Phil, how about use combination plus reversal as an idea generation method:

Reverse Brainstorming - A Different Approach to Brainstorming - Creativity Techniques from Mind Tools

The question in this case:

What can you combine with NLP to make NLP more pseudoscientific?

Mix it with:

martial arts
applied kinesiology
hypnosis
Afro-Caribbean spirituality
yoga,
Taoism,
neuro-scientific discoveries (whatever that means, sounds great as it has neuro in it)

Then call it Meta-Magick

What is Meta-Magick? by Philip H. Farber


So what is the main concept there?

Its the naivety factor that makes NLP more pseudoscientific.
The "over exageration" attitude is also an element

So taking that forward, one way to create a less pseudoscientific NLP is to either:

Remove any mention of magick, any conveniently ethnicky associations such as native american folklore, any neuroscience that has been taken out of context, and so on.

Or alternatively add some proper neuroscience to NLP courses, and use it to de-bunk all the new age stuff in the prior NLP and any other pet new age crap that has been added to NLP beforehand. (a kind of Derren Brown upgrade to NLP)

Any further ideas?

Also, the ideas are growing a bit, so feel free to summarize them in whatever way you feel like.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

O

What can you combine with NLP to make NLP more pseudoscientific?

Mix it with:

martial arts
applied kinesiology
hypnosis
Afro-Caribbean spirituality
yoga,
Taoism,
neuro-scientific discoveries (whatever that means, sounds great as it has neuro in it)

Then call it Meta-Magick

What is Meta-Magick? by Philip H. Farber


So what is the main concept there?

Its the naivety factor that makes NLP more pseudoscientific.
The "over exageration" attitude is also an element

Please support these last two statments. Cite studies if necessary.

Rich

I have been reading this thread with a passing interest. So some neurologists don't like NLP.....who cares ? Am I waiting for my subjective experiences to be validated by nonpseudoscientists ? Not really. If you lack conviction or congruence or whatever you want to call it in your world view why ask others to further distort theirs to meet you in doubt and uncertainty ? I suggest you talk to someone face to face rather than seek to persuade the world that we can only have what an integrated theory allows us to experience. What a limitation !!!!!

Bon Voyage

MH

RmtView wrote:

James

There is a view that NLP is dressed up as science ""NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics" (Prof Corballis 1999).

I am doing what NLP people claim they can do. I am placing myself in the position of people such as prof Corballis, Novella, and so on so that I can see their point of view. I am not doing it via NLP modeling because I need a meta (or outside NLP)-view. I have taken the approach of de Bono, to look at the actual information and background mental model of those people.

This is pretty standard stuff in RnD. Ok, it doesn't work with wall-eyed cult worshipers. Clearly that is a problem within NLP that needs a solution design as it seems to be systemic. Luckilly there is at least a minority of NLP people who are not so biased towards brainless confirmation.


The idea is to think in parallel with those who take an opposing view, and move forward with it productively, rather than stay stuck forever fibrilating in criticism of the opposition.

So far on this thread there have been some ideas generated to deal in some way with Corballis' concern, and some of Novella's concerns. You probably missed them.

Have another look through the thread, and have a go at generating ideas along any of those broad avenues of possibility, and please try to use the two general views (you already know the general NLP view, you will need to use and empathise with the general opposing view and understand its background knowledge model, you could even use other relevant views such as those from neurolinguistics, sociology of religion, and linguistics).

Rich

Rich - I get you.

You want to find a way to 'move NLP forward' by demonstrating it to its critics to be a valid discipline.

I get that. And I also get that you are not listening to what I am saying:

"Why do we need to prove NLP is not pseudoscience, if we are not claiming it to be a science in the first place?"

Why not let science do its thing and NLP do its thing - if one wants to take inspiration, information or ideas from the other, fine. If not, then fine too.

Who is it that appoints your 'skeptics' as the ones who set the standards?

Not me, hence I am not interested in their validation.

So with that, I'll leave you to it.


All the very best

James

PS - I find it ironic that you suggest I empathise with others views, when you yourself seem to totally ignore any perspectives that don't conform with your own agenda.

malcombhead wrote:

Rich

I have been reading this thread with a passing interest. So some neurologists don't like NLP.....who cares ? Am I waiting for my subjective experiences to be validated by nonpseudoscientists ? Not really. If you lack conviction or congruence or whatever you want to call it in your world view why ask others to further distort theirs to meet you in doubt and uncertainty ? I suggest you talk to someone face to face rather than seek to persuade the world that we can only have what an integrated theory allows us to experience. What a limitation !!!!!

Bon Voyage

MH

Rich's approach makes me think of the studies back in the 1940s and '50s that proved there was no such thing as a female orgasm. First, can we imagine researchers so out of touch with reality that they would have to contrive such tests in the laboratory? (And how awful those tests must have been not to yield results?) Second, can you imagine someone so out of touch with reality that they based their world view on such results?

And of course, this has all been said to Rich before. I suspect that his own fears about being called pseudo - combined with his undeniable intrigue with NLP leave him stuck in a bit of a loop. He might actually go ahead and learn something about NLP if James Randi wouldn't whip his hide, so he wants to change everyone else to fit his problem.

Or, alternatively, he's merely a webbot with a limited set of rules.
Anyone ever play with ELIZA?
http://library.thinkquest.org/11534/eliza.htm

That's funny, Phil.

I was just thinking about ELIZA the other day!

Fun at first, but if you kept at it long enough what a frustrating experience that could be!

Venus

venus_brown wrote:

That's funny, Phil.

I was just thinking about ELIZA the other day!

Fun at first, but if you kept at it long enough what a frustrating experience that could be!

Venus

That's right. And, for me at any rate, it's really, really hard not to poke fun at it and learn if there are any other responses:

> How's life, Eliza?
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
> Life. Do you know anything about life?
We were discussing you -- not me.
> Yes, that's right. I represent life. You are a program.
You seem to be quite positive.
> I'm just a positive guy.
Why do you say 'am' ?
> I say it for proper syntax.
You say you say it for proper syntax ?
> Uh huh
Please go on.
> Uh huh huh huh.
What does that suggest to you ?
> Positivity and maybe idiocy.
You don't seem quite certain.
> Not quite.
Do you feel strongly about discussing such things ?
> Only with my mother.
Your mother ?
> Your mother!
Lets discuss further why your mother .
> Don't be talking about my mother.
Why do you say your mother ?
> One more crack about my mother and I'll pull your plug.
Tell me more about your family.
> And so on.
Earlier you said your mother .

I'll ask it again, what can we learn from Rich's posts, what do we take from this ?

Cam13 wrote:

I'll ask it again, what can we learn from Rich's posts, what do we take from this ?

Lessons range in scope from specific details about Rich's behavior and our own behavior to broader generalizations about maps, models of the world and rapport. My observation is that most of the posters here were able to "try on" Rich's experimental set - but quickly rejected the experiment as not being particularly useful or, for that matter, having any clearly defined outcome. Rich, on the other hand, seemed unable or unwilling to give any other mental set consideration and, in general, took absolutely no feedback, including the obvious one that his tactic was not producing the responses he claimed to desire. The question remaining in my mind, that I hoped Rich could provide an answer for - What keeps him here? Is the "view" of pseudoscience such a big spectacular windmill that he must continue to joust with it?

Philip,

Nice post, I'll like to add that I DO believe NLP would be a better accepted skillset if it did stand up to scientific testing but its ability to work and future is not dependant on it, I see no benefit. We have two unconnected models so throwing them together makes no progress in any way. Some people may claim it is, well take it up with them as individuals and stop stating NLP and SCIENCE in a manner that any one person is qualified to speak for the whole industries. When individuals within scientology make scientific proven claim I would not make 'science' at fault for this but the individuals themselves. For me and I believe is fundamental to Rich's annoyance is that when 2 things do not fit he sees that as 1 being good and 1 being wrong and there is a middle ground. There is no TOTE, just pass and fail. I understand that Richard Bandler uses MRI and other technologies to advance theraputic elements in NLP, its reliability and understanding but just like Physics, geology and even brain surgery, they rely on unmeasurable qualities that would simple need to be overlooked in order for the rest of it to fit the scientific model. Explain this, the scientific model could prove NLP doesnot work, yet I and others have first hand evidence that it does. Can the scientific model explain paranormal experiences? No, does that mean they are not real, again, I have first hand experience they are. Science proves and disproves itself time and time again. Is the world still flat? Is the atom the smallest thing on the planet? Science has proved both these to be true. We would all like to cure mental illness and phobias using a method as reliable as electricity (have we worked out what that is yet or does electricity not work/exist either?) or pointing a laser into someones head but human knowledge and understanding is not there to do that, so what do we do? Rely on drugs that dont work (drugs that are scientifically proven to work) or work with the best of any skill set we can get our hands on. With the flaws in the scientific model and scientific testing where is the benefit to keeping it in such high regards? It is 1 way forward, not THE way forward. We have seen first hand on Rich's threads how narrow and inadequate its way of thinking is however I do speculate that cutting edge and trend setting science is a little more openminded than him. Lets not forget, Rich does not speak on behalf of 'science'. Science has a huge part to play in human developement and fortunatly we have other models of research to pick up where the scientific model is inadequate or at best inapropriate. 'Science' cannot even tell if someone is lacking in confidence, charisma, ME, anxiety, suffering depression or lacking direction let alone measure a progress in the development of these real situations. How the f*** is this even a debate! (I know it is not a debate it is just an academic form of bear baiting!) but hey, Rich, you like talking, well go for it, good luck to you. Consider this thread your padded cell to continue you preaching but I do ask of you, in other threads, for the sake of debate and other peoples enjoyment appreciate that different conversations require you to use different words and a different approach. You are getting boring and while I am happy to ignore this thread most of the time, my life would certainly be a less happy place if you derailed every thread with your repetitive drone.

Just a few thoughts,

Thanks

Matt

Science is a little like Capitalism, it works well in theory but...

You know, mostly I don't rush leap into controversies around here, and I should probably stay the hell out of this one, too, but here's my 2p worth anyway.

It has seemed to me since almost as long ago as first appearance here that Rich plays only one instrument: a dead horse which he has mistaken for a drum. Some seem entirely to have have lost patience with him and have withdrawn. I applaud you. Others have held on presenting their points of view far longer than I would have done, subjecting themselves bravely to endlessly-regurgitated references to a few peer-reviewed studies conducted by people who (along with the peers who were reviewing their papers) knew little or nothing about what they were supposed to be studying. I applaud you, too. You're all better men and women than I in your respective approaches and withdrawl. Hear, hear.

But if you haven't figured out by now that the measure of efficacy - the measure of (in fact) fact is NOT on the street walking your talk and getting results, but safe in the hands of the circle-jerking "scientific" skeptics Rich apparently reveres, then woe betide you, you multiply-colored hatted NLP cultists, you. The arbiters of truth have got your number, and they'll be coming to kick ass just any day now. Gird your loins. And have a good laugh. And don't forget to invite me to view the carnage. I'll bring the sandwiches.

And hey, if you want to keep Rich amused on this thread, presenting points which will be ignored or declared to mean whatever he decides they mean in order to go on flogging his ex-equine, perhaps nothing worse will come of it than a lot more successful Google searches for terms like "pseudoscience" and "logical fallacy," and some great stories to tell around the NLP campfire someday. It works for me. I'll keep on reading, and uttering the occasional "ohferfucksake" in the privacy of my office. And applauding the lot of you for putting up with it (those who do) and for not (those who do not).

I salute you all.