Ok, lets take another approach

The goal (with a bit more detail added): To deal with views/objections/ideas of people other than NLP people, especially those with scientific skepticism as a background model. (whether you believe NLP to be pseudoscience or not, there is value in moving NLP away from pseudoscience).

So lets try to get over the differences with baby steps first. Most of the comments here are ad hominem towards me, objections to exploration, or mistrust of ideas. Basically most people here cannot come to terms with the fact that the view of NLP being conceptually erroneous, ineffective, and pseudoscience is valid.

So lets try to look at the difference

How do NLP people and Neuroscientists differ? (and lets explore the differences more thoroughly than saying "they are dumbshits).

OK, neuroscientists (or the ones listed in the literature indicated by Novella), say that NLP is pseudoscience, ineffective and conceptually wrong.

NLP people say that it works

What are the main differences in the background mental/knowledge model? Some of them have been mentioned above, feel free to summarize them yourself in whatever brief sentence or list you like.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

How do NLP people and Neuroscientists differ? (and lets explore the differences more thoroughly than saying "they are dumbshits).

Just to clarify here. When I quoted J.R. Bob Dobbs, 'Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat you like an equal', I was quoting Sacred Dogma of the Church of the Subgenius (and was referring to your skeptic heroes, not to either NLPers or neuroscientists). I'll offer you another bit of Sacred Dogma from J.R. Bob Dobbs:

'Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.'

I thought ELIZA would like to take a crack at this:

> Ok, lets take another approach
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
> The goal (with a bit more detail added): To deal with views/objections/ideas of people other than NLP people, especially those with scientific skepticism as a background model
Please go on.
> (whether you believe NLP to be pseudoscience or not, there is value in moving NLP away from pseudoscience)
We were discussing you -- not me.
> So lets try to get over the differences with baby steps first.
What does that suggest to you ?
> Most of the comments here are ad hominem towards me, objections to exploration, or mistrust of ideas.
Did you think they might not be ad hominem towards you objections to exploration or mistrust of ideas ?
> Basically most people here cannot come to terms with the fact that the view of NLP being conceptually erroneous, ineffective, and pseudoscience is valid.
Do you feel strongly about discussing such things ?
> So lets try to look at the difference
That is interesting. Please continue.
> How do NLP people and Neuroscientists differ?
Why do you ask ?
> and lets explore the differences more thoroughly than saying "they are dumbshits
Would you like it if they were not dumbshits ?
> OK, neuroscientists (or the ones listed in the literature indicated by Novella), say that NLP is pseudoscience, ineffective and conceptually wrong.
Tell me more about that.
> NLP people say that it works
Does talking about this bother you ?
> What are the main differences in the background mental/knowledge model?
What if they were not the main differences in the background mental/knowledge model ?
> Some of them have been mentioned above, feel free to summarize them yourself in whatever brief sentence or list you like.
Oh, I like ?
> Rich

Ok, ELIZA seems to be doing a simple sort of parroting

So lets try to look at the difference
That is interesting. Please continue.

If you like:

NLP people tend to say they are not doing theory

Neuroscientists do theory (because according to cog psych people think and behave according to implicit theory).


Many NLP people don't seem to understand the concept of pseudoscience, (many of them keep arguing pseudoscientifically when they are told they are being pseudoscientific)

Neuroscientists hold scientific skepticism as a core concern, and as such understanding the nature of pseudoscience is important for them so they can research in a productive way.


As is mentioned above, NLP people tend to work with individual evidence, whether it works (seems to work) and are not interested concept.

Neuroscientists believe we are naturally biased and your own observations are inherantly faulty (confirmation bias). So they rely on strict connection to accepted theory, careful measures of efficacy, and strong peer scrutiny (communication with reference to corroboration of measured results/triangulation).

Neuroscientists tend to not mix superstitious practices with neuroscience practicals

NLP people tend to mix superstitious practices with NLP.


Feel free to adjust, add comment, add ideas, etc

Rich

Ok Rich, here's a really obvious difference between NLP and neuroscience:

- Neuroscience is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- NLP is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners

As differences go, that one is about as simple and obvious as it gets.

We could even explore some other examples of that very same difference:

- Biology is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- Swing dancing is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners

- Physics is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- Jazz is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners

- Chemistry is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- Pool hustling is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners

So given that these are all parallel examples, how about we use one to shed some revealing light on your original four proposed solutions for 'moving forward'


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

2. Move to a non-pseudoscientific jazz playing framework or combine with one

3. Move jazz to a less sciencecostume state (move jazz away from pretending to be scientific)

4. Start afresh completely, (blank slate jazz)


Of course, since neither jazz musicians nor NLP practitioners actually claim that what they do is a scientific endeavour, then none of those 'solutions' constitute anything more than intellectual masturbation.

You have noticed that nobody here has once claimed that NLP is a scientific pursuit - haven't you? It's been explicitly pointed out over and over again, after all.

Maybe if you stopped pointing at your straw man we could actually engage in some kind of meaningful dialogue. It would at least be a step forward. Hell, I'll even help you out - because there are some questions you haven't asked which aren't based on the collection of ill-formed premises that you rely on, and which nonetheless address some of the concerns you appear to have.

And the moment you can convincingly demonstrate that you actually are interested in some kind of productive dialogue, we can rock and roll.

Cheers,

James T

I have another friend, named Esme, who can be found here:
http://www.madsci.org/~lynn/juju/surr/esme.html

She wanted to address your post, Rich:

Rich: As is mentioned above, NLP people tend to work with individual evidence, whether it works (seems to work) and are not interested concept.
Esme: Neither do I. Where is your consiciousness?



Rich: Feel free to adjust, add comment, add ideas, etc
Esme: Yes, about seven years ago, have you?


Rich: Neuroscientists hold scientific skepticism as a core concern, and as such understanding the nature of pseudoscience is important for them so they can research in a productive way.
Esme: Are you talking to me?

PhilFarber wrote:

I have another friend, named Esme, who can be found here:

Heh. I like Esme. She's far more interesting than Eliza ...

james_t wrote:

Heh. I like Esme. She's far more interesting than Eliza ...

Esme is part of the Surrealism Server:
http://www.madsci.org/~lynn/juju/surr/

ELIZA does her thing, tho. It is interesting, maybe even poetic, to see a straw man argument in response to a 'bot.

Hi James T

You said:

- Neuroscience is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- NLP is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners

Yes, that supports the statement:

Many NLP people don't seem to understand the concept of pseudoscience

- Physics is a science, and is regarded as one by it's practitioners
- Jazz is not a science, and is not regarded as one by it's practitioners


Neuroscientists don't consider Jazz to be a pseudoscience, because it is not dressed up as science

Neuroscientists (Novella and list of other sources) consider NLP to be pseudoscience partly because it is dressed up as science (e.g. its called neurolinguistic programming, its full of odd scientific sounding terms and ideas that are either misapplied, or incorrect etc).

Plus, there is also the issue of people actually calling NLP science or a new science. e.g. NLP The science of Excellence


That indicates one pretty big difference


If you like you can take that one major difference and see how to reconcile for forward movement.

That would possibly require further investigation into the background of each party. There seems to be a difference in value or preference system in particular.

What would you see as the main value/preference differences?

Rich

Hi Rich,

RmtView wrote:

Plus, there is also the issue of people actually calling NLP science or a new science. e.g. NLP The science of Excellence

Just to get this one out of the way: Consider context here - this is straight out spin. The use of the word 'science' here is little more than a marketing maneouvre ... one, I might add, that is used extensively across a variety of industries. And unless a law is being broken, business is business - people say what they say to sell what they sell.

RmtView wrote:

Neuroscientists (Novella and list of other sources) consider NLP to be pseudoscience partly because it is dressed up as science (e.g. its called neurolinguistic programming, its full of odd scientific sounding terms and ideas that are either misapplied, or incorrect etc).

So by 'dressed up as science' you mean that there's a whole bunch of potentially misleading science-ish language involved in NLP, and that this is undesirable? If so ...

I absolutely agree.

Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that you present a distorted picture of the current research and it's implications.

And it doesn't change the fact that what you present as 'the' neuroscience view of NLP is just one view and not representative of the views of the entire scientific community.

And it also doesn't mean that there is a terribly important issue here that needs to be sorted out. So there are people who think of NLP as pseudoscience ... so what?

... but it does mean that I happen personally to agree with the perspective that much of the science-ish language in NLP (including the name itself, first and foremost) is potentially misleading and undesirable.

To be perfectly frank, the primary reason that I still call what I teach NLP is that it's a recognisable term and I'm known for teaching it. It's a business decision, plain and simple. 'NLP' has become a marketable brand.

I have to be elsewhere right now, but there may be more to come later ...

Cheers,

James T

Hey Rich

There are a couple of point here I have made in previous posts but you have apparently chosen to ignore.

The first one is regarding 'jargon' - you are claiming NLP is full of 'scientific sounding terms'. According to whom are they 'scientific sounding'? Has this assertion been scientifically validated or is it just someones opinion.

It is the latter isn't it? Pretty flimsy!

Jargon is used in all specialist fields, both scientific and non scientific.

The second point that you missed was the difference between NLP and the marketing of NLP. Some people use psuedoscience to market their NLP books/courses does not make NLP itself psuedoscientific. You are capable enough in your thinking to comprehend that difference in category, aren't you?

If I market my shampoo using psuedoscience, that doesn't make the actual shampoo psuedoscientific.

As a point aside, I am imagining you in another life turning up on a cat lovers forum, claiming that cats are psuedodogs and trying to engage the regular members in discussions as to how we can move cats forward so as they can be recognised as real dogs by their dog-loving detractors.

I'm out of here Rich, 'cause you are unable to get off your hobby horse long enough to see that it is not a real horse.

All the very best in your quest

James

Ok, some parallel thinking at last (a bit)

Its a small amount and there is still a bit of resistance to it, but small steps are better than nothing. And as Novella says, building a mental model is hard work (though I believe it can be so fun it doesn't seem hard)


James T

Yes, spin is normal in business, and advertising without adjectives would not be effective.

There does seem to be a difference between neuroscientists and NLP people in this sense. Advertising bodies tend to work their quality assurance along the lines of accurate and reasonable claims (legally binding statements etc).

Neuroscientists like to see accurate claims and accurate terms, and they can accept advertising also.

NLP people feel its ok to be inaccurate about their claims and terms


You say I am presenting a distorted picture of research findings. Actually I'm presenting Novella, Sharpley, Devilly, Lilienfeld and all that research stream's researcher conclusion about the research. They agree on conclusions, which you know about already - ineffective, incorrect, and pseudoscience.


And I re-iterate, from that point it is possible to generate solutions right now to solve aspects of that problem.


Hi James R

The jargon issue isn't specific to NLP, of course it is the same with scientology and similar. They also tend to say they are not doing science, but only doing scientology, or dianetics and so on. The key issue is regarding how misleading they may be.

Yes, the marketing of NLP using other more obvious pseudoscience is different from using straight NLP. For example, Phil's NLP may even be less misleading than Andy Bradbury's NLP, which is more insidiously disguised as science. If you see NLP and Native African Magick together, you are more likely to realize its all pseudoscience.


Here's another general summary of possible avenues of exploration:

Somehow get NLP people to understand the nature of pseudoscience so that they can avoid developing and communicating it.

Drop NLP altogether (probably the easiest, though not necessarily the most interesting)

Move it to less sciencecostume state (move it away from pretending to be scientific). Build an NLP that is not neurolinguistic programming for example.

Become admittedly pseudoscientific, and use that admission to help others understand the difference, and choose methods that are not pseudoscientific (something like Derren Brown)

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


Start afresh completely, (blank slate NLP)

Any others you might want to explore

For now, perhaps you would like to comment on which avenue might be the most productive

Rich

jamesrolph wrote:

As a point aside, I am imagining you in another life turning up on a cat lovers forum, claiming that cats are psuedodogs and trying to engage the regular members in discussions as to how we can move cats forward so as they can be recognised as real dogs by their dog-loving detractors.

Very elegantly put James - I wonder if Rich will define this as a cult-like response, imply that you're stupid or just ignore it completely?

RmtView wrote:

The jargon issue isn't specific to NLP, of course it is the same with scientology and similar. They also tend to say they are not doing science, but only doing scientology, or dianetics and so on. The key issue is regarding how misleading they may be.

Jeez Rich, you are hard work. Why choose scientology as your example here, rather than Philosophy, Music, Ballroom Dancing etc?

It wouldn't be because you are trying to imply an association would it? It would be a bit cheap to hijack someones point to push a personal predjudice, wouldn't it?

Or is it that you are simply unable to keep your prejudices out of your analysis?

RmtView wrote:

If you see NLP and Native African Magick together, you are more likely to realize its all pseudoscience.

So now Native African Magick is a pseudoscience is it? Rather than just not science?

Are you really intending to make this assertions, or are you just being careless?

RmtView wrote:

Here's another general summary of possible avenues of exploration:

Somehow get NLP people to understand the nature of pseudoscience so that they can avoid developing and communicating it.

Drop NLP altogether (probably the easiest, though not necessarily the most interesting)

Move it to less sciencecostume state (move it away from pretending to be scientific). Build an NLP that is not neurolinguistic programming for example.

Become admittedly pseudoscientific, and use that admission to help others understand the difference, and choose methods that are not pseudoscientific (something like Derren Brown)

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


Start afresh completely, (blank slate NLP)

Any others you might want to explore

We do want to explore others, but you don't!!!! Don't you get that????

This whole forum is about exploring possibilities, and not just the set ridgedly defined by you.

Note that I emboldened your words "move it away from pretending to be scientific". Arrrgh

NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!! Let me highlight this point:

NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!
NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!
NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!
NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!
NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!
NLP does not (and logically cannot), claim to be scientific!!!

If you wish to understand this point, please just ask.

Anyhows, gotta go.

James

james_t wrote:

Very elegantly put James - I wonder if Rich will define this as a cult-like response, imply that you're stupid or just ignore it completely?

Perhaps we could run a book

James

Hi James R

Yes African Magick would be considered to be pseudoscientific when it espouses theories of energies or balancing the body to connect with others and so on. Also, if the basic tennets have been tested and failed, yet it is still used to cure folk of illnesses, then its even more pseudoscientific. Of course if its just religion that involve no such claims, then its a different matter.

Those are characteristics concerning theories that can be tested. Of course there are other characteristics of pseudoscience that you will want to pick up on if you are interested in not sounding like you have swallowed a pseudoscientific subject.

Scientology is given as an example together with NLP within the literature referred to by Novella and others. Thats why it is a relevant example here. They see scientology as similar to NLP because the concepts are similarly erroneous and the sociological grouping is the same.

I have offered for anyone to feel free to make any other alternative to the ones listed above, and I have offered for anyone to re-phrase any summary I make in their own terms. Again, feel free to do so.

I will rephrase the statement you object to:

NLP (and other pseudosciences) can be pseudoscience even though their proponents state categorically that they are not doing science.

That is the scientific skepticism view that you have to deal with if you want to move forward with those broad avenues of possibility above, and any other avenues you wish to create and explore.

Feel free

Rich

It is evident that most of you really do not know what you are talking about (including the pro-science brigade) - not that this seems to matter too much to you, mind. Science IS the application of the scientific method.Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge through systematised study. The purpose of science is to understand the positive, REAL universe through rigorous, unbiased empirical observation where at all possible. The philosophical basis for science is that the universe is real and can be understood by unearthing the natural laws which are deemed to underscore it through the application of the neutral scientific method. According to the scientific paradigm, the universe should NOT be processed as a subjective construction of our minuscule minds. It is believed, on the basis of the best available evidence, that it exists independently of our beliefs in it. For example, a rock will fall to the earth when it is dropped off a cliff, why? Answer: gravity! Subjective beliefs surrounding the tale of the tragically unlucky falling rock are immaterial to the inevitable outcome. The objective natural laws of the universe do not require us to be knowledgeable or aware of them to take effect. The reason why NLP is treated as a joke by serious academics is because it says it is interested in what works for the individual, but it rejects the methodology best equipped to ascertain this: the scientific method. NLP has to ask itself, does it want to know if PRS, E-A-C, anchoring, etc are real or not? If it does, science is the way forward. If not, why bother at all? NLP might as well be substituted by the great fairy god doll in the sky who hands out favours on the basis of jelly baby sacrifice. She is after all real to me, and more importantly, she works for me, and that is all that ultimately matters. Right?

Hi Mac

Welcome to the forum.

Your post is a breath of fresh air in this thread.

I am totally supportive of anyone who can apply the scientific method to any aspects of NLP. I'm just not really sure it can be done . And I don't think that this detracts from the efficacy of NLP.

Take Eye Accessing Cues (EAC). How do we test this hypothesis? When I teach it on Practitioner I tell people not to take it as true, but to notice whether they find it a useful generalisation (as sometimes I do).

EAC's, to my knowledge, have only ever been claimed by B&G to be a working generalisation.

Now even if we assume the standard EAC pattern is claimed to be mostly true, how do we test it.

There is no way of forcing someone to access in a particular system first, and if we ask for their subjective report of how they accessed, how do we ascertain the quality of their report.

Anchoring - maybe we could test anchoring using some means of monitoring brain activity. That would be good, but of course, you couldn't do it double-blind because you would need a practitioner who knew how to set the anchors.

What about testing the effecacy of NLP 'changework interventions'. I would argue that NLP is about skillsets which would again rule out double-blind trialing.

So I don't really see how NLP can gain scientific recognition... And I don't really see why it needs it.

Dogmatic adherence to the scientific method seems to impose terrible restrictions upon what we are able to find value in.

My feeling is that it is worth remembering that the scientific method is a tool, and like all tools it has its uses and its limitations.

All the very best

James

Hi Mac

That is another characteristic of pseudoscience: To focus on confirmation rather than refutation.

We are not biased towards refutation. We tend to be biased towards confirming things we have adopted as beliefs. That is why science is important. Its a useful way of testing things in a cooperative way. It tries to prove itself wrong.

When things get through the tests, they have passed the rigours of science, and a conclusion is made. Its supposed to be a temporary conclusion, updated over time, however people do have to prioritize their time. If they hear about a theory that has been known to have failed before, or is conceptually erroneous, the scientists don't bother to spend funding on it. There are other things more likely to result in something useful.

So with that difference explored a bit more, do you have any other suggestion, apart from just keep going?

Rich

Hi James R

You said

So I don't really see how NLP can gain scientific recognition... And I don't really see why it needs it.

I beleive most people would want NLP to have some sort of scientific recognition to adopt it fully. But I believe it doesn't necessarily have to become a science.

There are degrees and alternatives.

Obviously one of them is to become a self-recognized proponent's religion that makes no claims over psychological efficacy

Another is to recognize that it is pseudoscience and install a way of moving away from that.

OR to recognize that it is pseudoscience and use it for teaching people the difference between science and pseudoscience (thats already happening at a lot of universities tho)

I'm sure there are other options

Feel free to add

Rich