I've been following various discussions on various websites about NLP and its validity. Someone recently posted some information that may at last explain a number of the sock puppet postings around the web, including this site. Since it was Andy Bradbury who told me about the discussion, I'll let him do the "outing"...

So this thread is to say you know something but aren't going to tell us?

Just building the tension!

Some people seem determined to prove that all critics of NLP are the same person. As a (friendly) critic of NLP myself, I find that a bit culty.

You need wait no more, Chris:

During the discussion on the "daily motion" site - an exceedingly appropriate title in this case - one of the contributors posted this information (daveharrow is the person who downloaded the video to the site and who was going through the usual "blah, blah, NLP is pseudoscience, blah, blah, blah" mantra). The person who wrote this offered "daveharrow" the opportunity to withdraw the video (which very likely infringes the copyright of an NLP-related training company), or be 'outed'. "daveharrow" invited the poster to carry out his threat:

You (daveharrow) are just another stooge

The real misinformation author is:
Dave Snowden
Wikipedia user name: Snowded.

Lecturer of business studies, business consultant
Adjunct Professor at Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Consultant at business consultancy company: Cognitive Edge

Properties: Lockeridge Wiltshire and Headley Down, Hampsire UK

Focus of misinformation activities: Scientology, chiropractic and neurolinguistic programming on Youtube and other internet video sites, Wikipedia, blogs and newsgroups.
Modus operandi: Extensive collaboration with skeptic stooges from universities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Nanyang, London, Guildford, Warwick, and Pretoria.

I have done my best to check the information out:

So far I've got:

Headley Down is a real place
There was indeed someone on the Wikipedia NLP page who was found to be running 14 (fourteen) sock puppets. It now seems that that person - Headley Down - was the fifteenth sock puppet.
The Wikipedia NLP pages is indeed being dominated by someone calling themselves "Snowded" who regularly erases any changes that don't fit his seriously distorted information.
I was personally advised, several months ago, that Headley Down had a direct connection with the university in Hong Kong.

But more directly than any of that, this links to an article on Dave Snowden's company blog where he boasts of his claims that "NLP" is "pseudo science":

Cognitive Edge

So there's the evidence - so far. I leave it to other readers to decide what weight they will give it.

Chris

Whilst not taking you literally (surely no one that small could run a whole website?) I note your comment that:

"Some people seem determined to prove that all critics of NLP are the same person. As a (friendly) critic of NLP myself, I find that a bit culty."

If you had me down as one of those people, I would suggest you might want to think again.

1. I have no idea how many people are actually involved in the nonsense posts from Headley Down, Andy McFay, Krish Singh, Austin Yu, Johann van Eden, etc., etc., etc.

2. What I do know is that many of these "posters" are either one person, or taking their material from a single source. Indeed, I have pointed out to you, in reply to an enquiry, one of the specific details that identifies that different people are using the same source.

3. Of course I could be wrong in thinking that quite a small number of people are involved, but if I am then I'm wondering why the rubbish they all write is so similar. If you boil most of it down you find there is really nothing there but childish accusations and "blah, blah, NLP is pseudo science, blah, blah, NLP is the same as Scientology, blah, blah". Over and over again.

4. We know that the person behind "Headley Down" was running 15 sock puppets. You will no boubt remember that no so long ago you told me that some twelve trouble makers descended on this site more or less simultaneously. And that was in addition to two or three obvious sock puppets who were either already on the site or had only just left.

5. I find myself wondering why, since none of them seem to know more than the barest details of NLP and the FoNLP, so many people (if they were indeed individuals) would want to come looking to make trouble for NLPers? Surely a cult like attitude would be to suppose that there is some kind of grand conspiracy going on. My belief that it is all the work of (at most) a very small number of idiots seems - to me - to be far less paranoid or "culty". Or to be blunt, neither paranoid nor culty.

Anyway, that's my take on the situation. If you think I'm mistaken in any part of it I'd be genuinely grateful to read your own observations.

Be well

Andy B

Andy mate,

I think i see what has happened with us in the past and i will erase my "violating the prime directive" post tomorrow. I fell victim to these sock puppets as a nubie on this forum and it was ugly. I had attached my new values and beliefs so closely to my identity that when i had the rug pulled out i began to question every thing. Like Chris i now hold my nlp beliefs lightly.
Before i came here i belonged to a Christian forum designed to allow others to discuss theology, philosophy and spirituality. If you think we are hard done by just take a look at those sites. Its a brutal battle field where Christian bashing has become a pass time for the more sadistic.
Our beliefs must stand or fall based on there validaty and this i think is a good thing. I see you are pioneering the way forward and championing the cause of nlp, which i respect my friend. I often question my own beliefs and have done so here publicly, which if i have caused you offence, i will apologies to you.
I would ask in return that you be patient with those of us that want to explore the fringe areas of reality. Theology, for example, is a respected study subject in all universitys and was originally ment as a doorway study before moving onto other subjects. Have a look at the origins of the first universitys in the world and the quadrangle.

all the best

Giulio

Thank you for your post, and since I am a Christian myself (not a particularly good example, as you have seen for yourself ) I completely accept what you wrote.

FWIW, and I know I never actually said this on the other thread, I would be perfectly happy if people discussed their spiritual beliefs all day long on this site - if only they'd keep those discussions to the "Chill Out" room which Chris has very thoughtfully provided for discussions on ANY topic.

BTW, whilst I feel very strongly that religion/spirituality has no place as part of the FoNLP, I have no problem at all with using NLP and/or NLP-related techniques to study/deal with people when they are involved in religious/spiritual activities. I used to spend quite a lot of time studying the genuine cults in my area, back in the day - Moonies, Scientologists, Hare Krishna, TM, etc. And I feel fairly sure it would be an interesting project to observe how they use various techniques - especially deletion - to get their messages across.

Anyway, thanks again

Be well

Andy B

Talking of cults, here are some interesting (?) snippets from Dave Snowden's blog (remember this guy is supposed to be an adjunct professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University as well as a computing consultant on an international scale.

He starts off describing how he was creating a knowledge management system for some company, and at one oint he asked the guy in charge how they planned to get everything set up and running effectively. I used to be involved in "KM" myself, some years ago, and I can confirm that this is indeed a crucial element in creating a successful KM function within a company.

Snowden then writes:

"His response was to argue for the benefits of all employees being run through a two day NLP indoctrination training session. I gather one Dutch utility has inflicted this particular torture on all its employees."

Leaving aside the deliberately derogatory and misleading word "torture", and the fact that two days is hardly enough time to do an adequate "taster" course, I think Snowden makes another good point here.
If people are going to learn about the FoNLP I believe it should be entirely voluntary. Making it mandatory for employees is not only unethical (IMO), but also quite possibly self-defeating by creating resistance amongst the delegates.

But then Snowden blows his own foot off with this comment:

"I remember a good friend and intelligent thinker going off for the three week NLP programme and coming back with his intellect and critical facilities reduced significantly by the indoctrination of the cult."

This comes after the inevitable "Mantra of the Uninformed": blah, blah, NLP is a pseudo science, blah, blah, blah. Plus the criticism that:

"the academics at Surrey involved with this nonsense are arguing that only phenomenological research is valid in the field. What they really mean is that there is no objective validation, so they fall back to anecdotal testimony."

But if this is so unacceptable, why is Snowden's only "evidence" anecdotal (and to my mind most likely entirely fabricated. Has anyone ever heard of an authentic NLP-related course that went on for three solid weeks?).

Maybe it was the North Korean version of "NLP", as devised by Shining Sun Bandler and Beloved Codifier Grinder - under the direction of Kim Il Sung, the 'True Creator' of NLP, of course?

What intrigues me is the thought that an employed academic, with a parallel career in consulting, thinks it worthwhile to run a long-term, time consuming and extremely negative campaign against something about which he seems to hasve very little understanding!

It's like some kind of self-imposed cult. How sad is that?

Andy B. wrote:

Cognitive Edge

So there's the evidence - so far. I leave it to other readers to decide what weight they will give it.

I checked the link and some questions poped up in my mind.

Shouldn't NLP claim being science first, and then be proven as pseudo-science ?? O_o
While ago I read an article like this, but I took it as a joke or something.

what are these guys really after? first I thought to myself, if they are trying to invalidate NLP they should have something interesting instead to present. They're just presenting some very limited stuff from what I saw. can anyone elaborate on this?

and BTW, How's NLP self-reported or whatever as they're saying? Get some phobic guy from the street and run the strategy, without him knowing squat about NLP. What do they mean by self-approved?

I couldn't make sense of the makers of the sensemaker ...