Rich, say whatever you like, but the things you state are by no means logical fallacies to me.

They only become so when you personally reinterpret the given statements in such a way, as to make them fallacies - but this, on your hand, requires certain presupositions (like no standard or authorative sources for NLP) which are simply false.

It reminds me of a trainer friend of mine, whose client accused him of "installing obesity", because the training script included the phrase (without any specific context) "You know you shouldn't, but you just feel drawn to it" - with the client immadietely exchanging "it" in his mind to "eating cake" - and actually claimed that's what was written in the script

My suggestion for you would be to dissociate from your beliefs for a moment and just read Andy's text without them. You can get back to them later, if you still find them useful - or not, if you find some more useful alternative along the way.

Hi Artur

Thats not how a skeptic would see it, and thats not how anyone who understands informal logic would see it.

Andy's article, and many of the articles in his site, really do nothing but confirm the view that NLP is a pseudoscientific cult.

Now thats a big problem

Anyone reading the article can see the tone is pretty much ad hominem from top to toe. A skeptic would notice that straight away. There are fallacies throughout, and the basic assumptions are fallacious in logical positivism terms also.

Its a total non-starter.

The literature Andy criticizes takes the logical assumption that the claimant is under the burden of proof. NLP has not shown results of efficacy. TV shows do not cut it! Trying it for yourself does not cut it! Those methods are antagonistic to proper enquiry.

Throwing illogic at skeptics is absolutely the worst and most unconvincing thing an NLP author could do. It leads the reader to conclude NLP is indeed a pseudoscientific cult.

I know the skeptics articles are not perfect in themselves, but Andy approaches that from the position of the appeal to authority fallacy. Its both arrogant and silly.

There are some good ways of dealing with criticism. Andy's articles show just about the worst way possible.

Rich

Rich --

would it be too much to ask you to demonstrate the correct response to matters that you clearly find Andy lacking in, so that we may model How Things Should Really Be Done?

Yes, thank you Adrian

NLP and the improved understanding of NLP are facilitated by understanding and communicating beliefs.

Some people believe that empirical knowledge is crucial. Some don't. Some people believe that reality cannot be known except through subjectivity. Some do not hold that belief.

It is arrogant to state that reality IS subjective. It holds no particular value for a skeptic, or in fact many other types of people in the world.

Its also arrogant to state so absolutely what NLP is. Its ok to say what you believe NLP to be. Andy is stating what NLP is.

NLP's definition has always been up for grabs.

But there is a generally accepted point in the field; NLPer's belief is that it doesn't matter whether something is true or not. All that matters is whether a belief is empowering or not, or any sliding scale therein.

Its fine to be a skeptic. Its fine to point out (as the skeptic articles have done) that NLP is full of authors who say wierd, exaggerated, and changeable stuff.

Skeptics have their beliefs. NLPers have their beliefs. We would do far better working through acceptance.

The evidence so far is that NLP literature is utterly crazy with differing ideas and claims. Its evident!

Its evident that NLPers have differing views on things. Its evident!

Its also accurate to say that on NLP author who has written books and claims to be expert is also utterly unconvincing. Thats evident! He also abuses the metamodel as a way of beating up critics. He also does so using a web of logical fallacies.

What Andy is lacking is the ability to stand back, accept, and examine beliefs, and he has a current inability to recognize the evidence when its all over the literature.

These are things that need solving.

I would start by holding Andy's articles up as exemplars of what not to do when 1, trying to convince people that NLP is kosher 2, when trying to convince people that the metamodel has any validity, 3, when trying to show people how to convince others of anything at all.

In practical terms, standing back and accepting peoples beliefs for what they are is far more productive. Its a more flexible way forward.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

It is arrogant to state that reality IS subjective.

Arrogant? Perhaps. Congruent with what we know about human perception, from what scientific research we have? Certainly. Thus, a sceptic (I don't care about skeptics as such - fundamentalism is fundamentalism and doesn't react to reason well - so let's stay with sceptics, ok? they're the saner lot and I actually tend to share their attitude to many things ) would have problems arguing this.

RmtView wrote:

Its also arrogant to state so absolutely what NLP is. Its ok to say what you believe NLP to be. Andy is stating what NLP is.

NLP's definition has always been up for grabs.

Has it? It appears to me that the 'up for grabs' bit is your belief, however - as Eric has stated, and from what I understand, he knows it quite well, having been in the field for so long at having had such an involvement in it - the definition actually seems to be quite clear, it's just you who isn't accepting it.

RmtView wrote:

The evidence so far is that NLP literature is utterly crazy with differing ideas and claims. Its evident!

Define what exactly is NLP literature. That's no.1. No.2 is even more interesting - because so is, among many others, psychology literature and even physics literature. There are some central concepts on which all agree (in physics, and not very much even this in psychology) and everything else is a free for all.

RmtView wrote:

Its evident that NLPers have differing views on things. Its evident!

So do practically all scientists in practically all fields. It's evident as well However it was never used as an argument against, say, physics

RmtView wrote:

What Andy is lacking is the ability to stand back, accept, and examine beliefs, and he has a current inability to recognize the evidence when its all over the literature.

Actually, as far as literature evidence goes, I think you might be the one lacking here - please note that Andy does, in his article and beyond, point out to many research articles centered on NLP. You, so far, have made a rather general and - when closely checked - unsupported claim about the literature - so I'd be careful with that

RmtView wrote:

In practical terms, standing back and accepting peoples beliefs for what they are is far more productive. Its a more flexible way forward.

I remember a thing about Gallileo's astronomist opponents claiming that they will not look through his telescope, because he had bewitched it and would bewitch them if they look through it. Would accepting their beliefs really have been more productive?

Ok, at this point you may want to look at the reviews of NLP by people who's beliefs are not really compatible with its practice as something that is refered to as a model, as it has concepts that do not meet the rigour of normally accepted psychological and neurological concepts, and has failed to pass the reviews of the controled studies on its specific claims:

SRMHP: Our Raison d’Être

Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105

Norcross, JC., Hedges, M., Prochaska, JO., (2002) "The face of 2010: A Delphi poll on the future of psychotherapy" Professional psychology, research and practice 33(3), pp.316-322

Norcross, JC, Garofalo., Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522

Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437


Their views are very well supported by some very solid measures. The more recent views are that NLP is the modern archetypical pseudoscience because of its density of erroneous concepts and the behaviour and pseudoscientific arguments (mostly stories) of its proponents.

Also another development over the past decade or so is NLP's inclusion with groups such as scientology/dianetics, EST, the EMIN, and so on e.g.:

Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate p.195 ISBN 0754634094

Partridge, C. 2004 New religions : a guide : new religious movements, sects and alternative spiritualities / edited by Chrisopher Partridge. Publisher New York : Oxford University Press.

Again, pretty neutral reporting of NLP as a natural follow on within new age developments.

These are all views of people with a particular belief and a solid grasp of evidence. All peer reviewed.

There is no need to deride them or call them erroneous or chuck logical fallacies at them. There is no need to invoke conspiracy theories. Your Gallileo story does nothing but betray a mind that has been indoctrinated using logical fallacy and pseudoscientific argument. Its third rate salespitch. NLP does not have to go through that shit.

Please at least try to use your imagination and look at other people's views from a more flexible perspective. Then perhaps you may start to formulate something resembling something reasonable.

Rich

Hey Rich,

I’ve found the way you’ve been contributing to this forum quite fascinating.

Aside from a couple of friendly opening posts, your overall style has pretty consistently followed this pattern (some paraphrasing, but I think you’ll agree it’s a fair representation):

1. Pacing the group’s reality: "NLP is great, and it works great for me! I’m on your side!" (E.g. here).

2. Seeding doubt: "But everyone laughs at it in universities, and thinks it’s a pseudo-scientific cult. All the rigorous, proper research done on it has shown it doesn’t work, and people who try to defend NLP academically, or think you can verify it works in a testable, consistent way, should be pitied, because they’re deluding themselves!" (E.g. the majority of your posts on this forum).

3. Re-affirmation that you’re on the group’s side: "But we just need to be open-minded and flexible, and accept that this is all true! Who needs those scientist eggheads? Come on guys, I’m on your side really!" (E.g. here)

You did something similar in a speed-reading thread.

1. Shock statement then pacing statement: "Speed-reading’s crap. However it’s also brilliant!"

2. Seeding doubt: "But research shows that speed-readers are just deluding themselves, and training themselves not to be able to comprehend., and speed reading trainings screw people up."

3. Re-affirmation that you’re on the group’s side: "But it’s a great way to "imagine" you’re reading, and it certainly sparks creativity, even though you’re not really reading at all!"

I just don’t buy it Rich. Statements like these just don’t ring true to me:

RmtView wrote:

I have to say I respect the practitioners who are always so cutting edge that they know empirical evidence to be a waste of time.

To be cutting edge you have to stay away from the shackles of empiricism.

They sound like smug piss-takes.

What’s fascinating is that there are actually NLPers who hold bizarre beliefs like: “We no need no steeenkin neuroscience”. But you don't come over as one of them. Your enthusiasm for "Is it pseudoscience?" debates, calling forum members delusional imbeciles, and your mantra-like incanting of “Logical fallacy! Logical fallacy!” doesn’t make you sound like an “Anti-science NLP true-believer (praise be)”. It makes you sound like a “Concern Troll”.

Wikipedia wrote:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

For example, in 2006 Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll

You say “NLP works great”, but you have strong concerns that it’s useless to try to prove it, and it’s ridiculed in academia, and NLPers who try to argue that it’s not a pseudoscience are pathetic... “But I’m on your side guys!”

Now I’m sure you wouldn’t be wasting your time deliberately trolling on internet forums and trying to spark debates and get a rise out of forum members by calling them pathetic and delusional, trying to sow doubt, and then claiming “you only want what’s best for the field”. Because that would make you... well, I’ll let you finish that thought. But I do find it fascinating that you’re at least unconsciously mimicking the posting pattern of a concern troll, and hey, maybe that’s a troubling revelation for you consciously – ‘cos I’m sure you’re not the kinda guy who’d want to waste their life doing a thing like that, are you Rich?

Joe

Sure Joe

At last!

Thats the core of NLP I am getting at.

You know, the stuff that makes sense. The stuff that attracted you in the first place.

The ability to see things from multiple perspectives. The ability to actively soak up any punch and keep going strong.

There is clearly a lot more to develop in that line. Piles of old crap to heave out of the way, and plenty of light to shine.

Thats about as much as I need to say for a friday.

Cheers
Rich

If I knew what fun this forum would turn out to be, I'd have started it before I was even born.

RmtView wrote:

Their views are very well supported by some very solid measures. The more recent views are that NLP is the modern archetypical pseudoscience because of its density of erroneous concepts and the behaviour and pseudoscientific arguments (mostly stories) of its proponents.

One thing you might be interested in learning more about - NLPt, neurolinguistic psychotherapy - therapy based on NLP. And commonly accepted among the european psychotherapy associations, which are, in general, far stricter about the scientific background of a therapy field then their american counterparts. Just a thought

As for research supporting NLP, for starters, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming#Published_studies_on_NLP_or _its_principles

And finally - do refer to the points I've made in my previous post, which show that your favourite term - logical fallacies - are actually appearing in your playing field

Chunking upwards, I think his point is that no matter what the NLP crowd does to establish that NLP works, it won't matter in the eyes of the scientific crowd. So the NLP crowd is just wasting their time and are better off spending that time and energy going their own way instead of trying to please whatever makes up scientific evidence since NLP on its own is not in any way dependent on science or scientific approval.

Kind of like science dismisses NLP and goes its own way not paying any attention to NLP. Science won't die with the disapproval of the NLP crowd, and NLP won't die with the disapproval of the scientific crowd.

(I'm just paraphrasing Rich here, and I could be totally wrong. My perceived notion of his views and beliefs don't necesserily match my own. In fact, they don't.)

"Hol-de-roll, I'm a Troll" (childrens record from the 1940s or 50s)

Firstly, a couple of points in answer to "Rich's" posts (they are NOT intended FOR Rich since, as I'll explain in a moment, I don't believe that "Rich" has the least bit of interest in a holding an intelligent conversation/discussion).

1. On expressing an opinion.
An "opinion", according to my dictionary (which uses pretty standard definitions, I think), an opinion is an evaluation based on beliefs where there is a lack of evidence. That is to say, where there is solid evidence it makes little sense to talk about being entitled to an opinion which contradicts that evidence - UNLESS you can produce evidence to support your counter claim. As we have seen, "Rich's" only counter evidence is two logical fallacies - an appeal to so-called experts (Sharpley, Heath, etc. - "so-called" experts because the one thing they clearly have little or no expertise in is NLP) and appeal to the opinion of the majority (or at least a sizeable minority) of commentators.

2. Next, it would appear that "Rich's" arguments about the flaws in my website depend almost entirely on the beliefs that (a) ALL skeptics think exactly the same way, and "Rich" apparently believes he knows exactly how they ALL think, and (b) that I am writing my articles, FAQs, etc. for skeptics.

Actually I agree with "Rich" on one point - that I won't convince skeptics to change their minds. Very true - due to what happens neurologically when we are faced with cognitive dissonence. Which is why I don't even try.

3. As I think Adrian pointed out, "Rich's" arguments also fall down when he claims that I am committing the logical fallacy of appealling to authority because there are NO authorities in NLP.

This claim could only be true if there was no one around who was actually amongst the original creators of NLP. In practice, however, BOTH of the co-creators of NLP are still alive and well. and my claims are based both on their written comments, and on a face-to-face conversation I had with John Grinder only six weeks ago on this very subject.

The "appeals to authority" fallacy only applies where you claim that something is true because some experts or other say it is true. Quoting directly from Bandler and/or Grinder does not fall into this category. Nor, IMO, does citing Chris Collingwood constitute a logical fallacy since, as I said before, I know he has worked for years with John Grinder and his views on NLP - as far as I know them - are consistent with views I have gotten DIRECTLY from John Grinder.

joseph_kao wrote:

Aside from a couple of friendly opening posts, your overall style has pretty consistently followed this pattern (some paraphrasing, but I think you’ll agree it’s a fair representation):

You got it, Joe, but it goes even further than that.

It's time to reveal, folks, that "Rich Farnham" is, in reality:

Krish Singh
Joe Greenfield
Daniel Ralen
"Dr." Elaine Warwick
Austin Yu
Ken Bond
Johan van Eeden
Andy McFay

And those are just the aliases I actually know about.

"Rich", since that's the name he's using here, has the aim in life of winding up NLPers" and "exposing" NLP as "pseudoscientific" nonsense. Since he actually seems to have very little accurate knowledge about NLP, this is by no means a simple task that he has set himself. Which maybe explains why most of what s/he writes is actually copied - paraphrased or cut and pasted - from elsewhere. The crock Wikipedia page on NLP, much of which was created by "Headley Down" (he of the 14 "sockpuppets" or aliases) is one of his favourite sources.

I would have mentioned this earlier (I first suspected it about a week ago), but at first "Rich" avoided using most of the keywords which, together with the general style of his writing, are such a dead giveaway.

By the way, Joe, you're quite right about the pattern of his communications. I've seen it myself a couple of times on the chat group NLP-Mind.

As "Ken Bond", after I "outed" him/her on the NLP-Mind croup, s/he threatened to destroy me by writing articles that showed what an idiot I am (shock, horror, probe!), and I guess this is another example of his/her attempts to carry out this threat.

If you want to check my claim about "Rich's" identity you can find examples of his/her previous attacks in Joe Greenfield's Knol on NLP (a typical rewrite of Wikipedia material), in his/her reviews under the names Daniel Ralen, Elaine Warwick (see reviews dated April 19th, 2007 (DR) and June 21st, 2007 (EW) @

Develop Your NLP Skills, Creating Success Series, Andrew Bradbury, Book - Barnes & Noble

And as Austin Yu @

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0749445580/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints =0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R109QLNSXXRKK P"]Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Develop Your NLP Skills (3rd edition)[/ame]

Of course it's up to everyone in this thread to decide whether they will, as individuals, keep responding to "Rich". However I think it's pretty much guaranteed that this is one troll who is unlikely to change his ways.

Be well

Andy B.

Spot on, Damian

Its the higher level that gives the best view in this case

Some rather insecure NLP practitioners can pull some pretty sad acts and it just makes them more paranoid and insecure.

What has always surprised me, even before I started using NLP, was the seeming inability of some people to step out of the rut.

If we want to do NLP and feel connected to the rest of humanity, its wise to see things from their point of view, and recognize its validity, whether its the strong views of Richard Dawkins, or any of the standard skeptical views of the individuals Andy has posted above.

Stroof, if we can accept the views of Hawaian Huna practitioners and native American shamen, we should be able to accept the validity of a scientist's views.

Its just a matter of stepping back and making sense. Though I admit some people still seem to have trouble doing so.

Rich

I remember interviewing the liberal peer Earl Russell - Bertrand Russell's son - and he said that he prefered discussing politics with his students at Kings College (where he was a lecturer) than with politicians because his students disagreed with him and they had interesting discussions, while politicians treated him with so much reverence they never challenged him. (I nodded along enthusiastically and didn't notice the irony until many years later.)

'Trolls' don't tend to be very respectful but they still offer us a chance to learn. They are often highly motivated and they have strong beliefs, at some level. Rather than get frustrated with them ("We put so much effort into making this a nice place for people to come and learn stuff - how dare one person try to ruin it?!"), I prefer to put my principle into action: as I come here to learn, what can I learn from these posts? Sometimes we forget that 'troll' is just a label we use and I wonder if it's even a useful one. As long as the posts reveal something about how that person thinks and how their beliefs are structured and what metaprograms they use, and so on, I find that interesting. And noticing structures is often easier with trolls than real people because trolls try to cover their tracks, and usually the more you cover your tracks the more obvious you become.

Too many people treat NLP as a sacred cow, even though they claim to eat sacred cows for breakfast. Whatever Rich's purpose and motivation, his presence here seems to be seen as a challenge to what most of us believe. Good. Learning how and why other people disagree with you is a good way to challenge your own beliefs and learn more - and that's NLP in action.

chris_morris wrote:

Whatever Rich's purpose and motivation, his presence here seems to be seen as a challenge to what most of us believe. Good. Learning how and why other people disagree with you is a good way to challenge your own beliefs and learn more - and that's NLP in action.

In principle I agree entirely with your concept of learning from one's opponants. But that is a generalization. In the specific case of "Rich", can you give us any examples of what you would hope to learn from his posts?

In the several years that I've seen this person trolling around the internet I have never seen him/her:

1. Make a claim that wasn't traceable to some other source - particularly Wikipedia. Thus apart from guessing that "Rich" knows very, very little about NLP I'm not sure how we could learn anything at all from his/her regurgitation of other people's ideas

2. Be constructive - pro or con. On the contrary, in one incarnation - Krish Singh - this person has openly stated that their highest purpose is to annoy NLPers. From various posts this suggests, to me, that this is because s/he possibly imagines that since we naturately all believe that NLP makes us perfect, if s/he can get an NLPer to lose our cool that shows how clever "Rich" is. Fine. But does this bode well for any behaviour other than that which is calculated to cause irritation and frustration? And is that kind of thinking/behaviour a suitable subject for NLP modelling?

3. Show any genuine knowledge of NLP. A person who actually knows something about NLP, yet objects to some aspects of the field may indeed throw new light on what NLPers think/believe/do. But in this case "Rich" seems to know very, very little about NLP, and has certainly never shown any willingness to discuss what he thinks he does know. Take his latest offering on a site other than this discussion. This appeared in response to an article about NLP in business on TrainingZone.co.uk on Oct. 6th, written under the alias of Jonathan Dealby:

"The main problem is that the techniques in the amalgam have generally been found to have failed testing. Eye accessing, phobia cure, and so on. All failed.


Some that look positive are actually oversimplistic, from mirroring, to body types.

And the concepts, from left/right brain, to the use of outdated linguistics (the metamodel) are pseudoscientific.

Its still a collection of stuff that has a positive feel, yet fails to deliver. Sure pseudoscience often gets institutionalized due to some people not knowing the difference.
Neuro - Linguistic - Programming. Its misleading nonsense from its name to its concepts to its trainers."

This is bog standard fare from the person behind "Rich Farnham", "Joe Greenfield", etc.

How can one usefully answer it? This post, like most of what we've been seeing on NLPconnections, is offered as straightforward fact which admits no discussion or debate, and certainly rejects all claims to the contrary.

Personally I can't think of a single useful thing one could learn from this character - a self-declared "troll" if ever there was one.

If you think different then I'd personally welcome any specific details you might care to offer in support of your suggestion.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy, your whole approach reeks of pseudoscientific and illogical thinking. You are being fundamentally unconvincing.

I have supplied references to peer reviewed sources, and yes they do come from other places on the web, including the sources you were hurling your logical fallacies onto.

Of course I have taken arguments from other places on the web. I am talking about the type of scientific skepticism that those people use, and that will find your type of rhetoric to be inept and laughable.

The way you have replied is by throwing more of the same illogical stuff.

You make three ridiculous statements in the same post

1, regurgitating other's ideas is useful as it gives us a way of understanding their point of view.

2. I'm being highly constructive. Judging by your articles you never really had any cool to lose. I use NLP, and I am talking about the pro of respecting the views of people who have taken the care to write their views. I offer the pro of standing back to examine your own assumptions and beliefs. Of course I am also looking at the con of your type of paranoic and pseudoscientific argument.

3 Nobody needs to be an expert in NLP here. You may know more about NLP that me, but you do NLP in the worst possible way. You must have modeled the most unconvincing people on the planet. Comical Ali springs to mind. You have taken the approach that presupposes you know it all, that any out-group is ignorant of NLP and therefore their view is invalid. Your writing stinks of appeal to authority fallacy.


These are simple problems to avoid as long as you are willing. As I said before, NLP does not have to go through all the crap you have been heaping upon it.

Rich

Rich, what about the peer review data I have given you in return? The one confirming NLP and it's claims? How easy for you to ignore that?

Artur, please read my posts carefully. Sharpley 1987, was a review of the all the research studies conducted to that date, and the data showed NLP failed to show efficacy.

I posted this on another thread:

Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105

It concludes that after lots of testing, NLP gives a no-show on efficacy, and discusses NLP's pseudoscientific (untestable) nature. (the scientific viewpoint)

Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437

This updates on NLP with reference to other similar developments and concludes NLP remains a pseudoscientific belief system. (again science viewpoint).

Druckman, D., and J.A. Swets, eds. (1988) Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Thats the applied psychology practitioner view. It includes NLP as a no-show on efficacy also. It did say that NLP may be tested some more, but there was no follow up after they found the concepts didn't match with modern neuroscience.


You can do exactly as NLP Inspiritive has done and concoct your own conclusion

A Summary of Academic&Experimental NLP Literature"


However, its not going to convince any skeptic or anyone with a reasonable grasp of neuroscience.

I'm talking purely about incompatibilities. Your assertions are incompatible with the views of those with scientific skepticism as a grounding.

But what is reasonable is being able to accept that it is a valid conclusion that NLP gives a no-show on efficacy, that its concepts are erroneous, and that its adherants often behave and argue in a pseudoscientific manner.

Its that last bit I am trying to get people away from (NLPers arguing pseudoscientifically), and I am using the simple device of accepting the validity of rigorous research.

It doesn't mean you have to ditch NLP, thought that may be an option. All it means is cherry picking from an NLPers point of view is not convincing at all. I can do it, you can do it, it is not convincing. But when you triangulate several studies that other independent reviewers have worked on, you get the result = NLP failed that test.

Fine! Its a valid view. Now step back and look at those views together. The scientific skepticism view, and the NLPer view (NLP works). You can agree that they disagree. So that third person view is the one to take. NLP is not about the truth. Its about choosing the beliefs and perspectives that empower.

Take the punch, accept it from a higher perspective, and move forward.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Artur, please read my posts carefully. Sharpley 1987, was a review of the all the research studies conducted to that date, and the data showed NLP failed to show efficacy.

If you don't see contradiction between "1987" and "to date" in the year 2008 - then there's something seriously wrong here

Furthermore, you are backing your argument on one study - even if it is a meta-study. The link I gave you offered quite a few detailed studies confirming - so refering to a single study, which 20-years old is absurd and completely non-scientific, when there are so many more research pieces available.

You keep stating the same things over and over again, ignoring any conradictory data - but stating them over and over again will not make them true, no matter how much you might wish for it to be.

RmtView wrote:

But when you triangulate several studies that other independent reviewers have worked on, you get the result = NLP failed that test.

Actualy, no, you don't, unless you select the studies in a manner that is completely arbitraty Which you seem to enjoy doing, beyond the point of absurdity.

RmtView wrote:

The scientific skepticism view,

No - it's not a scientific skepticism. It's non-scientific/religious skepticism, CSICOP style . And that's a huge differece.

Artur Krol wrote:

Rich, what about the peer review data I have given you in return? The one confirming NLP and it's claims? How easy for you to ignore that?

Pretty easy, it would seem. It certainly seems like Rich is completely oblivious to all of the studies referenced on that page which are supportive of NLP and cut the legs out from under his position - you know, the studies by people like:

Bailenson and Yee (2005)
Dietrich, A.M. (2000)
Turan, Bulent and Ruth M. Townsley Stemberger (2000)
Chartrand and Bargh (1999)
de Miranda et al (1999)
Unterberger, G. and Ulbrich, H. (1998)
Frank, A. (1997)
Genser-Medlitsch & Schütz (1997)
Lund, H. (1995)
Reckert, H.W. (1994)
Sandhu, Daya et al (1993)
Konefal J, Duncan R, Reese, M (1992)
Swack, J. (1992)
Muss, D. (1991)
Wilhelm (1991)
Malloy, T.E. (1989)

Of course, these are only some of the studies that are specifically referenced on that particular page. I mean, Chris has compiled a list of roughly 200 relevant studies on his website - but if we included those then this would be a pretty long post, wouldn't it?

Artur Krol wrote:

You keep stating the same things over and over again, ignoring any conradictory data - but stating them over and over again will not make them true, no matter how much you might wish for it to be.

A very good point indeed, and let's be fair here: maybe Rich isn't deliberately trying to make it look like the data somehow supports his argument ... maybe he just doesn't know what he's talking about. "Never attribute to malice what could be explained just as easily by simple ignorance", and all that.

Cheers,

James T