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

Do you have scientific proof that that was funny? Sceptics may claim that it is just pseudosarcastic.

Thanks

Matt

Redsimo wrote:

Do you have scientific proof that that was funny? Sceptics may claim that it is just pseudosarcastic.

Genius!

Actually skeptics would probably say that its only qualitative support.

There might be a few skeptics who would say something metapseudosarcastic.

But I can't for the life of me think what that would be. Would that make be the subject or the object?

Never mind!

Rich

I have a weird feeling that whenever someone challenges NLP, alot of the practioners react in the same manner as religious people react when their belief in God is challenged. Why aren't people seeing what Rich is talking about? Can't you see that there are two valid sides to this arguement? Instead you make personal attacks against him.

To my knlowedge, NLP is just modeling success instead of trying to understand the theories behind sucess. And it built up from there alot from hypnosis and other therapists. And no, the process doesn't involve much testable methods. The sceptics like to believe in testable methods, whereas NLPers believe in NLP for its implications and attitudes, etc... Both have their place.

James,

Maybe I am way off with this so I take no offence if you tell me I am wrong. I and I guess others knew of the pseudo scientific debate with NLP the very first time they heard of how NLP works. From that first discussion or from reading the first passage in a magazine the debate you claim we cannot see kicked off in each of our, and probably your heads. For me, Rich has bought nothing new to my debate and while I waited to be inspired and engaged while a passionate person bought something new to the table, I saw nothing apart from him alienate people from the debate with his jibes and insults tied to double binded statements. To use NLP terminology he broke rapport with the group he was talking at and they ceased to engage him in his preaching and the only response he wanted he never got, again, we know what NLP says about who is responsible for the responses we get. Each person acted on their own motives and how each chooses to act is their own call. I know many people who thrive on discussing God and I know the same people can be really turned off when being preached at by others peoples beliefs, which, I think is what Rich has done here. People, me included, enjoy debating anything but when the other people do not show respect and and open mind the debate becomes repetitive and the participants despondant. Rich showed very little interest in other peoples opinions and while that is his personal choice and he was shown respect when he did that, it does make for a poor discussion on a forum and not suprisingly the second thread where Rich preached on died a death.

Do you honestly think people cannot see for themselves the debate of NLP and/for/again/whether it really is worth another minutes thought regarding its association with scientific testing? Whether you can create an environment where people want to talk about it is up to you. Tougher things have been discussed on this forum and lets be honest we all enjoy a great debate. Has anyone said they cannot see the argument?

Rich has had an interested and participating audience and a great topic to debate, did we meet up away from the main forum page a plan an attack or a unified defence for Rich? No, or course not, but one by one people lost interest or dropped out of the conversation until one person pointed this out, that took the conversation in a new direction. Now with people like yourself trying to make some meaning to the reasons for the joke or fun on this thread, well, look at any other thread and see the same style jokes, do they mean the same as what you claim here? What is the difference?

Thanks

Matt

Hi Matt

I am very interested in other opinions. I am presenting arguments from a scientific skepticism point of view.

Why should I try to maintain rapport in that activity? A scientific skepticism oriented person would not need to apply such devices. Surely as an NLP defender that is something you should be working on.

I know people are working on solution to the problems that are seriously in yer face all over this thread. Unfortunately, many other people have been responding with a religious zeal that causes them to hurl pseudoscientific and fallacious argument because the conceptual provocation has made them unbalanced and defensive rather than creative.

Its not my business to maintain your state of mind in a creative zone. Thats your job.

It is very funny about the other thread. Right now it looks like its just hanging there because nobody can think of a way to make NLP more pseudoscientific

I know people are incubating ideas though.

Rich

Matt, the article in question was directed at the general population and not just practioners of NLP. I believe Rich made valid points in use of logical fallcies by the thread starter regarding the article. It's your choice if you don't want to particpate in the debate, but I think it's unfair to make personal attacks and accusing him of trolling without even egaging his actual message/arguements. And like Rich said, if you're supporting the NLP side, wouldn't it be anti-NLP to outcast others with different beliefs than yours? It's only a map, right? And he's not operating with bad intentions, he's operating the best he can with the choices he has, isn't he?

NLPhase wrote:

Matt, the article in question was directed at the general population and not just practioners of NLP. I believe Rich made valid points in use of logical fallcies by the thread starter regarding the article.

Well that's nice and vague. If you ever come back to this thread perhaps you'd like to be specific?

NLPhase wrote:

It's your choice if you don't want to particpate in the debate, but I think it's unfair to make personal attacks and accusing him of trolling without even egaging his actual message/arguements. And like Rich said, if you're supporting the NLP side, wouldn't it be anti-NLP to outcast others with different beliefs than yours? It's only a map, right? And he's not operating with bad intentions, he's operating the best he can with the choices he has, isn't he?

Sure he is, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that he is trolling.

You appear to think that the NLP presuppositions you have touched on mean that people are always squeaky clean.

On the contrary, people operate with good intentions, but possibly in a totally selfish manner. Likewise a person may act from a limited set of choices because they refuse to look at any alternatives.

The reason for labelling Rich a troll was his overall behaviour - provocative with no consstructive purpose for anyone else, the wealth of nonsense and patent misinformation in his posts on several threads, etc., etc., etc.

I wonder how you came to overlook these indicators.