Hi Adrian

Yes you are basically questioning the need for this thread. Similar to Duff, you appear to not want to join in, or perhaps you just wish the problem to go away on its own.

After talking to people within this thread and on other threads I believe more than ever, that the evidence indicates that people will stand to benefit and increase their flexibility and ability to connect with people outside the NLP circle when they manage to address the problem and offer solutions.

After all, science is definitely respected by many, especially those who like their airliner/medicine/electronics/educational intervention/safety equipment companies to be use rigorous and science based tests for efficacy and reliability.

If the NLP circle could find better ways to connect with the above people (people who care whether something really works), and without sounding pseudoscientific, then I think things will improve.

Any ideas?

Rich

Rich,

my interpretation is that others do not agree that there is a 'problem' and therefore feel no need to develop a 'solution'.

You discuss increased flexibility, yet you are inflexible on acknowedging others views.

I think as only you notice this problem, then its over to you to find a solution.

Chris

Ok, following on from my own successful experiences with the use of submodality shifts and modeling skeptics, I will take the ideas forward a ways.

One interesting idea that some skeptics responded to with interest was the notion of corporate shamanism.

They may have found it more agreeable as it sounds admittedly pseudoscientific, yet actively useful. Then notion is that you go into a company, shake a few sticks, ban a few troublesome ideas, work with the metaphors of the company, and make people feel better about getting on with stuff.

The notion also removes itself from the so-called techniques of NLP. I'd say thats a benefit. It takes the perspective that you do anything to get a good response, and you act as naturally as possible in order for it to follow on productively.

But thats just a communication/metaphor approach

There is also the idea of modeling those with unscientific beliefs. Now I'm not a fanboy or anything, but Tom Cruise strikes me as being incredibly successful despite having unscientific or pseudoscientific beliefs. Look at how he behaves. Its certainly not liked by all, yet it seems to result in positive charisma. I saw him on the recent comedy, Tropic Thunder, and in addition to being incredibly funny, he was the most self-mocking actor on the lot.

So, running forward with those ideas, what NLP principles do you think could be useful for connecting better with science thinkers?

Rich

Five posts in six hours. All with the same "But I'm only trying to help you!". It's a bust.

Listen everybody, there is no point in going further. He's had a good run. He can't say he hasn't been offered free speech. But it's a wind-up - he's not doing this for your or anyone's good.

If you all stop now, he will make a "take that" slap back at me - and then what?

If we all stop now (after his undoubted "slap back"), then all he can do is keep posting against himself - and presumambly even he will get tired of that.

I'm serious. Take what Andy Bradbury says - this guy is a wind-up artist. The best way to wind-up a wind-up artist is to not respond any more.

Eric.

RmtView wrote:

I am not trying to prove anything. Only looking for solutions – as per this discussion thread’s title. Proof of the efficacy of scientific skepticism? I don’t know of any studies, but there are plenty of studies on how to overcome confirmation bias using questioning techniques and the understanding of independent evidence.

Good - now let's apply them to the scientific skeptic's wordview, becuse the scientific skeptics generally don't Which makes you quest to have their views accepted similar to having the views of Jehova's Witnesses on blood transfusion accepted. Sure, we can accept them as valid - but not as congruent with what we know of the research.

RmtView wrote:

Sure, some people (who have very broad notion of cults) might call the science community a cult,

Ah, but that's not what I was talking about.

I was pointing out that the so-called scientific skeptics are actually very much detached from the science community and the scientific method. A true scientist is, as R.A.Wilson pointed out, a zethetist - skeptical of both new knowledge and the knowledge he already has. In comparison, scientific skeptics are, in fact, dogmatics and conservatives, hiding under the guise of skepticism before any new knowledge - and this is quite disagreeing with the scientific approach.

RmtView wrote:

all depends upon what you call cult thinking. Skeptics would call NLP a cult because of in-group thinking, the adherence to pseudoscientific thinking, the vague treatment of reality, the dismissal of independent evidence and so on.

So would an independent observer call the skeptical societies, such as CSICOP.

RmtView wrote:

Again, looking at 195 different studies (some of which don't even mention NLP) is prone to erroneous or biased sampling. The papers I recommended (1988 and 2005) show reviews of literature in toto.

And are these two papers not prone to erroneous or biased sampling in themselves? That's double standards you're using. And twice - because if you allow the error or biased sampling argument for the 195 positive studies, then you have to allow them for the negative studies included in the reports as well - which makes the reports flawed in themselves.

So, if you do want to follow the scientific inquiry route, I'm afraid you need to drop the double stanards approach.

OK Eric, but the evidence is all over the web and all over this site. There is a significant scientific viewpoint that NLP is cultlike and pseudoscientific.

If the only thing you can do about the problem is to arrange social pressure to try to force me to drop the matter, then what are the people outside the NLP group going to think?

Its clear that some of you can't get past the fact that there are a lot of people out there who consider NLP pseudoscientific, either within universities, or just within the questioning and skeptically oriented parts of the general public.

There are some of you who are able to accept that the view exists.

For those who cannot accept the premise of this thread (that there are people who view NLP as pseuodscience) feel free not to join in.

For those who would like to explore ways of connecting with the world at large without falling prey to the generation of pseudoscientific and fallacious statements, feel free to continue generating ideas.

Rich

Hi Artur

Spot on about Jehovas Witnesses. And this is also something that needs to be followed up. Its the congruence issue that matters here.

Which ways do you think we might be able to communicate with skeptics that allow all to remain congruent? Accepting other views whilst keeping your own is one way. But that is still a yes no problem with no forward movement.

I think the Edward De Bono type of thinking is useful moving forward from your provocation. Basically, what is beyond the "I am right, you are wrong" situation?

From what I know about the subject, a good way forward is to look at more possibilities. That might include using creative generation ideas such as reversal and random inclusion.

Firstly taking reversal as an idea generation method:

Reverse Brainstorming - A Different Approach to Brainstorming - Creativity Techniques from Mind Tools

How do we make NLP more pseudoscientific?

Rich

PS, here is a bit of Intelligence for your Development and Choice stages (if you are using Herbert Simon's model of creativity)


Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye?
How to Sell a Pseudoscience


Rich

RmtView wrote:

Its clear that some of you can't get past the fact that there are a lot of people out there who consider NLP pseudoscientific, either within universities, or just within the questioning and skeptically oriented parts of the general public.

There are some of you who are able to accept that the view exists.

For those who cannot accept the premise of this thread (that there are people who view NLP as pseuodscience) feel free not to join in.

For those who would like to explore ways of connecting with the world at large without falling prey to the generation of pseudoscientific and fallacious statements, feel free to continue generating ideas.

Rich

Honestly who cares what people who call themselves scientists and define who else is a scienctist and define what is and what isn't science think about NLP or anything else that lies outside their paradigm.

Read up on some of the Philosoph of Science written by the below authors then come back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos

The fundamental point of difference between the current western scientific paradigm and NLP is that of the Subject - Object distincion. Untill that is dealt with 'objective' scientists won't ever get their head around NLP.

Thanks for the links Neil

More food for thought and ideas.

The fundamental perspective of a field is interesting to skeptics. Its something they seem to be able to understand in general.

So, yes, I would say if you want to make NLP more pseudoscientific, then ignore the philosophy of science, talk erroneously about the philosophy of science, or treat it as if it has no value.

Moving forward with that idea, you could make NLP more pseudoscientific by practically making it more complex, less accurate.

A point of agreement with skeptics is that science is recognized as a relativistic discipline, as is NLP.

Ok, feel free to evaluate that idea, and generate more as you like

Rich