Hi James and Damian

You are just not reading

A skeptic will take what they know to be the over all result: NLP failed.

Accept that point of view and you will be fine

Continue to conflate your own studies and you will be laughed at as a pseudoscientist.

NLP is now mentioned in pretty neutral academic studies about cults in the same breath as scientology. It is used in universities as an example of an archetypal pseudoscience. Don't take my word for it, look at the sort of sources you have been throwing my way eg wickipedia:

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats the view of an expert on the subject, and he wrote a very recent peer reviewed paper talking about the sort of things you guys have fallen into. You are cherry picking and putting together whatever pseudoscientific argument you can because you are dissonant.

Instead of trying to run in quicksand, like Andy seems to have been doing all over his website, you might possibly consider the simple act of accepting the validity of the view that NLP is empirically inconsistent in concept with accepted neuroscience and psychology, and gives a no-show on efficacy.

Accept that empiricism is a valid view, accept that there is a view that NLP does not work, look at the NLP view that NLP works, stand back and take the overview.

Its a simple matter of perspective

Or you can continue your pseudoscientific conflations as much as you like. You will still be showing the world that NLP is full of true believers and pseudoscientists who cannot accept other people's views.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Hi James and Damian

Umm, excuse me? Haven't commented this thread in quite some while. You must've had be confused with the other Polak.

My mistake, Damian

I meant Artur

Rich

Sorry Rich, not cutting it. Selecting a single scientist as the expert who's supposed to be listened to, at the exclusion of all other scientific reviews is EXACTLY the kind of non-scientific, cult-of-skepticism thing I've been talking about and has nothing to with he scientific method.

You are the one not reading Or reading - and promptly ignoring what you read

Hi Artur

You are using ad hominem. A skeptic would find that unacceptable and unconvincing.

According to a skeptic, you are under the burden of proof. A research stream would of course produce many papers. You are choosing the ones that suit your particular bias. A rigorous researcher would choose a set of agreeing reviewers of all relevant papers. Devilly is one such reviewer, and he concurs with Sharpley. There are other reviewers who also concur with them if you are interested in the research.

There are no accepted reviews of all relevant controlled studies that conclude NLP is efficacious. Sharpley, and Druckman were the main reviews. Druckman (1988) was a board of reviewers (14 neuroscientists and psychologists). They concur with Sharpley, NLP - no proof of efficacy, conceptually erroneous.

Devilly also concurs with the researchers who examine NLP as a new alternative religion or cult.

The results are far too much in agreement to be ignored. Sorry, but you collecting a bunch of yays and nays really will not cut it at all.

We are talking about Andy treating skeptics as if they are idiots. Andy is using the logical fallacies of misplaced burden of proof, moving the goalposts, appeal to authority, and so on. Not only is he using them, he is appearing to use them. His style of writing makes it look like he is both paranoid and deeply insecure.

You are using the logical fallacy of unrepresentative sampling, and as I have said, any NLPers' review of the research is likely to be highly biased towards NLP, including my own.

Dismissing other people's views is simply disrespectful and leads to ingroup nonsense and further erroneous thinking.

Its not something that I like to see in NLPers. Its something that I am happy to spend my time discouraging.

Rich

I'm bored Think of some new things to say, pease, since really - restating these will not make them true. So either start reacting to the arguments you get - or good luck to you, but I'm too bored to continue having a one-sided conversation

The great thing about someone like Rich is he has to stop talking when people stop replying.

Artur. You just threw an incorrect piece of info at me and broke with the relevance recommendation of logical thinking. Thats more logical fallacy. You are talking about irrelevant things.

You presented me with an erroneous statement (I didn't offer only one scientist, I gave you a set of corroborating studies).


You also came back with an emotive reaction (I'm bored). You don't like being presented with solid evidence so you miss the main point altogether.

If you cannot deal with views from the scientific skepticism perspective, then you are going to be mindlessly unconvincing to anyone but NLPers and the unquestioning.

Flinging logical fallacies at skeptics is completely ridiculous. Its just like running in quicksand.

Looks to me like you're sunk already. You can join Andy.

I know there are NLPers who are able to accept other views and can write without resorting to pseudoscientific fallacy flinging.

It takes a bit of flexibility though. Y'know, like taking your head out of the sand! A bit of a task is it?

Rich

Rich,

"You don't like being presented with solid evidence so you miss the main point altogether. "

Can you find 1 person (other than yourself) that believes you are producing solid evidence? I believe you believe in what you say and that you will dismiss anyone elses opinion in order to hang on to that belief.

You keep writing general statement such as

"studies that conclude NLP is efficacious"

or

"NLPers' review of the research "

or

"accept that there is a view that NLP does not work, look at the NLP view that NLP works"

Your statements are about as useful as writing...

"studies that conclude Biology (or physics or whatever) is efficacious" it means nothing to anyone who can think for themselves.

or

"Scientists review of the research ". If you were writing for a tabloid newspaper then you can get away with such statements but in a 2 way conversation expect to be called on it.

We (NLPers) are not 1 person who share the same values, beliefs and levels of priorities when deciding to believe something or not. Most of us have the ability to act as individuals and some have even been known to show levels of basic intelligence. I would speculate that most people on this site have a passion for the generic topic of NLP because they have actually had positive first hand experiences of it working and not just taking second hand opinions and passing them off as their own.

You keep writing about 'NLPers' as if knowing about NLP is a limiting factor in an academic ability or ability to judge a situation. Do you believe that experienced and well qualified people (qualified in business, science, psychology, statistics, economics, journalism and most other topics) are some how unable to express their own opinions about various parts of NLP just because they are qualified or experienced in NLP? You seem hung up on 3rd party research and unable to express yourself, are you making the points you want to make? If yes, it is time to move on to a new point, if no, then I have been right all along, your posts are pointless.

I am starting to see why NLP is getting a bad reputation at your University if this is how you express yourself.

Thanks

Matt

I recently went on holiday and had a great time. The hotel was great, staff were friendly and very welcoming. The resort was clean and weather was perfect. I came home and saw a review on a website that stated they did not like it there. I am gutted, using photoshop I have had to edit all my smiles to sad faces and scrubbed away my sun tan. I just wish there was a way to forget all the happy times I had there.

Erroneous post.

Hi Matt

Its not a question of believing NLP has failed the controled studies. Its simply a matter of accepting that it is a valid view.

I am saying that as an NLP practitioner or user, you "should" be able to accept that normal scientific skepticism would view NLP as having already failed the test decades ago.

The skeptics dictionary, the peer reviewed review articles I posted, and the ones that were presented here in the first place by greenfield and others; They are all valid points of view.

They have generally been treated as if they are written by people who couldn't possibly know what they are talking about (cult thinking). They have been treated by Andy Bradbury with pseudoscientific argument, logical fallacy.

If you want to help NLP practitioners give their point of view about NLP to people outside the NLP "circle" and to those with a scientific skepticism point of view, it will really help if you don't write such overdefensive logical fallacy.

With a little bit of perspective and flexibility, it is perfectly ok for an NLPer to accept that the scientific skepticism point of view holds NLP as having failed the controled studies, and having erroneous concepts, or concepts that do not fit with the accepted bodies of knowledge of neuroscience and psychology.

You can still believe NLP works, and accept that the views of skeptics are valid.

Rich

Lets play spot the pseudoscientific argument game,

"They have generally been treated as if "

"you "should" be"

"normal scientific skepticism would view"

You can still believe NLP works, and accept that the views of skeptics are valid

I believe all views, yours and other peoples, but they are just views, mine included.

Thanks

Matt

BTW, if there is anything you do not like or disagree with about this post just ignore it, but then again you probably already have.

RmtView wrote:

I am saying that as an NLP practitioner or user, you "should" be able to accept that normal scientific skepticism would view NLP as having already failed the test decades ago.

Just to spot the red herring here - there is no option, in the scientific worldview, of something having 'failed the test decades ago'. Science does not work as in 'denied forever'/'accepted forever' basis - it works on a 'according to the information we have at this point, we can accept this and deny that - but that may change tommorow, because we realize we are talking about approximations'. That's how proper science works.

But that's just me pointing out basic logical errors here

Oh, and of course the so-called "skeptical worldview" you preach so much can be accepted as valid - as a worldview, because it's just a worldview. What it cannot be accepted as, is being congruent and valid with the scientific method - because it simply breaks the rules and requirements of said method. Might be why CSICOP officialy forbode any scientific research do be done under it's name, after the first, cataclismic failure of an experiment they did (not only did they mess the experiment, they tried to lie about the results... and were exposed to the public for that).

Hi Artur

Its not as if NLP has never been tested. There are findings. The overall finding is that NLP failed. That is a time matter.

However, the scientific skepticism view places NLP far lower down the list because its concepts are pseudoscientific and its adherents (us) tend to behave pseudoscientifically using pseudoscientific argument.

NLPers will tend to say all views are equal (and to some extent I agree). But a scientist will say, all views are equal, but there is evidence to follow. So a view that logically follows the most independent evidence will be the more convincing.

It is still necessary for NLPers to accept that the scientific skepticism view is valid. Or at least, if you think in terms of damage control, and moving forward, it helps if pseudoscientific argument is avoided.

Unfortunately, it seems pseudoscientific and fallacious argument is the cornerstone of some NLP authors and practitioners thinking and communication.

I would like to change that - to allow for a more flexible map.

Rich

Rich, let's turn the tables

Let's look at the pseudoscientificity of the so-called scientific skepticism.

When has it ever been proved to be an effective thinking style? Peer review studies only, please.

When has it ever been proved to be a method actually following the scientific method? The proof so far is that it is a cult-type organization, refusing all and any data that go against it's point of view. They even go so far as to falsify research in order to get the results they want -and this has been confirmed.

So, would you accept it as a valid point of view, that scientific skepticism is in itself pseudoscience and a cult? Remember, the burden of proof is on you.

And I do expect an answer to the issue here - is scientific skepticism a pseudoscientific cult?

RmtView wrote:

Andy, your whole approach reeks of pseudoscientific and illogical thinking.

"Pseudoscientific" - the description of a topic which is allegedly scientific but clearly is not.

Since neither Grinder, nor Bandler, have ever - AFAIK - claimed that NLP is scientific, and HAVE in fact rejected any suggestion that they are interested in presenting NLP as a science, clearly NLP is NOT, and never has been, a pseudoscience.

Since I am personally (mildly) opposed to the idea that any aspect of pure psychology can be genuinely scientific, this claim is clearly inaccurate.

Having said that, I have to admit that "Magic in Action" - both the book and the video - provide full information about three sessions conducted by Richard Bandler, under laboratory conditions supervised by two faculty members at Marshall University (in Huntingdon, West Virginia), complete with follow up reviews conducted 8 months later.

So I might be wrong

RmtView wrote:

Its not as if NLP has never been tested. There are findings. The overall finding is that NLP failed.

As a matter of fact, the research "Rich" so eagerly quotes doesn't show that NLP doesn't work.

To take some typicxal examples that you have quoted time and again:

Drenth's somewhat hysterical outburst is based (it seems) on nothing more than his belief that an article by Prof. Levelt is absolutely accurate. He seems to have done NO research whatsoever of his own.

However Levelt's article is itself a load of twaddle which depends entirely - as far as I can see - on his misunderstanding of the books he says he has read, including "Frogs into Princes" and some slightly unauthodox writing by Dutch authors that he says spend a lot of time discussing engrams.

(Note: In conventional psychology "engrams" are simply memory traces - the Scientologists' claim that they are negative memories created whilst the sufferer is unconscious has nothing whatever to do with NLP or conventional psychology, though there seem to be quite a few people who can't tell the difference.)

Likewise Heap's review (from 1988) shows a very high degree of misunderstanding and plain error. And whilst Heap claims that the research he reviewed showed little or no support for NLP techniques, in fact no less than 45% of the experiments showed some degree of positive support. Indeed, if we took out the items which aren't experiments at all, the experiments which aren't about NLP, and the abstracts which are so brief or confused that they cannot be sensibly evaluated, the percentasge in support of NLP techniques and ideas would be much higher - well over 50% by my reckoning.

So that's three learned critics whose criticisms don't amount to a hill of beans.
(As I said before, I will be posting full adetails on all three author's work on my FAQs page in the not too distant future.)

Now, can we suppose that "Rich" has anything useful to say about NLP?

Can we reasonably suppose the "research" that s/he quotes is worth the electricity needed to power it across the web?

Have we washed behind BOTH ears AND scrubbed our finger nails?

Then Goodnight, and pleasant dreams



Be well

Andy B.

Andy, sorry you still haven’t managed to get over it

I said it several times before; you don’t need to claim science to be a pseudoscientist, you only have to dress it up as science, take science concepts out of context, argue fallaciously, make it obscurantic, etc. Learn to read!

Regarding videos; If it’s not peer reviewed, if it is outweighed by disconfirming studies, then it failed the test by scientific skepticism standards. Hence the view that NLP is pseudoscientific.

You, a fallacy spouting NLP author (NLP authors are certainly not all so illogical), have absolutely no credibility when compared with Levelt (Max Plank Institute of psycholinguistics) Drenth, a chaired prof of psychology, and Heap, a famous hypnosis researcher who published umpteen peer reviewed journal and conference articles, and wrote and contributed to several psychology practitioner books.

I did wash behind my ears and had a jolly good old scrub. I noticed that you have been spouting your nonsense in multiple places all over the web, and you have simultaneously boosted and confirmed the view that NLP is pseudoscientific, whilst having your arse roundly kicked in the process.

NLP does have its problems, conflicting information being but one. You are just making it far worse by hopping around the web with your boot in your mouth.

Perhaps you will learn one day. I’m not holding my breath.
Rich

guys I think it's time to stop feeding the troll

Good prompt Lenny

There's little chance of Andy stepping out of the rut. And there are other much more productive threads on the go.

Rich

I'm right there with you Lenny - although to be perfectly fair, I gotta admit:

RmtView wrote:

Good prompt Lenny

There's little chance of Andy stepping out of the rut. And there are other much more productive threads on the go.

Rich

... at least that was funny