Notably Limited Personality

Chris, just relax... you are far more important in this universe than that guy will ever be and other people's jellousy and attacks is part of being a "chosen one". Accept your destiny!

Oh... and please send to me my plane ticket info. haha

Just standing back and looking at this scene from an outsider perspective......

Some groups have a strong culture of in-fighting. This has been noticed historically with dispersed and non-centralized tribes. With no center, there tends to be no reliable set of ideas, so disagreement is rife and any rival groups will tend to use whatever method they can to bring the others down.

I read about this in the literature on shamanism, when the author described rival tribes and rival shamen. The group is prone to gathering round and protecting the leader and the cult's shaman. All sorts of interesting "dispelling" goes on, including extensive belittling, and other such verbal submodality actions.

Thats a fairly reasonable anthropology view.

Of course from the more science oriented view would say that with all pseudosciences a lot of peacocking goes on; "my kung fu is better than yours" and nobody ever gets round to supporting the assertion beyond boast'n'diss. But thats just the empirical position.

Rich

I remember that spoof site from some time ago and admit to finding it quite amusing, particulalry the link to NLP fight club.

I can't inagine what must be going on for someone to go behave in the way described. I'm just glad that NLPconnections is going strong and is such a useful resource for its many members.

Of course from the more science oriented view would say that with all pseudosciences a lot of peacocking goes on; "my kung fu is better than yours" and nobody ever gets round to supporting the assertion beyond boast'n'diss. But thats just the empirical position.

I believe the same goes on in 'non-psuedo' sciences too.

Cheers

Some groups have a strong culture of in-fighting. This has been noticed historically with dispersed and non-centralized tribes. With no center, there tends to be no reliable set of ideas, so disagreement is rife and any rival groups will tend to use whatever method they can to bring the others down.

I've never found that it requires a group to be "dispersed and non-centralized" to give rise to in-fighting, but only to be a group. A perusal of the history of science will reveal a great deal of in-fighting, or so it seems to me.

I read about this in the literature on shamanism, when the author described rival tribes and rival shamen. The group is prone to gathering round and protecting the leader and the cult's shaman. All sorts of interesting "dispelling" goes on, including extensive belittling, and other such verbal submodality actions.

See above. And what is a verbal submodality?

Thats a fairly reasonable anthropology view.

Of course from the more science oriented view would say that with all pseudosciences a lot of peacocking goes on; "my kung fu is better than yours" and nobody ever gets round to supporting the assertion beyond boast'n'diss. But thats just the empirical position.

I'd agree that Anthropology, like Sociology, is more of an applied art than a science, but I'd say the same of Psychology. And I wouldn't grant most people who wear the "scientific skeptic" label that much, if your pronouncements are an example of the kinds of distortion and generalization that characterizes "skeptical" thinking. And they seem to me to be quite typical of what I know of that mindset, actually, and mostly devoid of meaning. Maybe I'm just particularly cranky this morning.

Yeah, that's it...

Chris

Actually, I think most of the comments about me were written by the same one or two people.

I think you're probably right - and my guess is that s/he isn't a million miles away, as they used to say in Private Eye

'Nuff said

Be well

Andy B.

Artur

I do have a problem with this line of atacks on a guy who, from what I understand, can't even defend himself - because he's been banned from the forum. Especially when it breaks into personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.

Don't feel too bad. In my experience there's a certain kind of person who always has several accounts on each chat group they belong to sio that if one gets booted off there's still another/others through which he or she can continue to track activity on that site.

Of course I have absolutely no knowledge of whether that might apply to Mr Kemp and it certainly isn't my wish to imply that it does (my previous post referred to someone else entirely).

Be well

Andy B.

Steve

I believe the same goes on in 'non-psuedo' sciences too.

Rich Farnham is a sockpuppet, too. NLP as a "pseudoscience" is one of his/her pet topics. His/her purpose (as announced on another site) is simply to wind NLPers up by making what s/he thinks are particularly provocative accusations - it's pseudoscience, it's a cult, it's full of magical spells (the Circle of Excellence technique, for example, is actually a ritual for banishing negativity if you believe "Rich") and so on.

All delivered in a rather prissy, pseudo-academic style -until s/he starts getting bitchy.

Be well

Andy B.

Hi Bridget.

Skeptics seem to accept generalization. Apparently its an important mental function in empirical psychology, and basically its unavoidable (and essential for thinking).

The skeptical view is that overgeneralization is the big problem. Its a matter of taking one idea and applying it to things that are inappropriate for the task.

This is the problem with the metamodel.

Skeptics would say that NLP proponents make extreme overgeneralizations in their methods and in the efficacy of those methods. The linguistics concepts are pretty much only theoretical and outdated, and only apply to a narrow set of circumstances and it tends to be taught as if they are broadly applicable.

So from that science (neurolinguistics) view, the metamodel itself is a wild boast and an overgeneralization. A scientific skepticism oriented person might conclude that NLP has an intrinsic overgeneralization system built into its methods, which of course may be ultimately derived from the belief system of NLP (that subjective experience is structured and discernable).

If it has such an intrinsic boasting system, then it leaves it very open for various groups to make whatever boast they like, hence the rather split arrangement of groupings. That seems to be the culture and judging by the comments above, its at least semi-admitted.

I propose that the trick to resolving such problems would be to lay down each opponent's information in parallel without making any judgment, and then looking for agreement. Its more likely then that a way forward can be designed.

Rich

Hi Andy

I'm looking for parallel thinking here.

Yes, the ideas and some of the examples I use here are taken from the articles written by skeptics (the articles you originally presented to me on this forum).

You might just be able to acknowledge the facts instead of your usual logical fallacy ad-hominem attacks.

We are all NLPers here you know. I know some NLPers try to use a lot of authority power and group pressure, but others are a little more discerning.

Your approach is another example of in-group dissing and belittlement. I suggest its something that NLP could do without.

I am looking for solutions.

Rich

Rich, I'm not interested in joining the general discussion you seem to bring to every thread, but just to be clear, I was talking about "the kinds of distortion and generalization that characterizes 'skeptical' thinking." I realize that generalization is necessary to learning, as is distortion. I was objecting to the way you were using them.

Well, Bridget, you said you were just being cranky.

I found that your post was not altogether "red hat", and so responded to the informational aspects of your communication.

Similar to the generalize - overgeneralize issue: What would you suggest for resolving in-group problems being presented on this thread?

Assuming there are a set of ways to think in parallel and resolve the NLP backbiting problem, which way would you choose?


Rich

With this idiot, do not get sucked into content.

Think - what is the PROCESS here? What are his intentions here?

This is what Eric Berne called a Game - initial move: challenge, provocation, seduction, or con - "Aren't you man enough? Aren't you smart enough? Isn't your nlp good enough?

"Isn't your understanding of nlp/ science/ logic good enough "

"Surely there are two views to any argument - surely you can argue your case ... aren't you the man you think you are?" etc, etc.

Then the switch. What do you get if you do get hooked, get sucked in? More pseudo-academic-sounding insults - ie, MORE OF THE SAME.

He never intends for you to "win". He never intends for you to feel good about the exchange. He never intends even to leave it at "Well then, we can agree to disagree ... " and/ or "Your view is as good as mine" - there's always a slur, always another put down.

Don't you SEE it?

Any time you see his name, think: what is the process? - and do you want to be part of it? Or not.

Eric

Hi Eric

Suckers? You mean the people who are interested in other people's views? People who like to stand back and look at social processes in addition to individual thinking and communication processes?

Ok, switching to white hat;

Here we basically have a thread about one individual (Oh go on! lets take an outsider skeptical-comical view, lets call him a neoshaman), who has climbed a hill somewhere and built a banner and a politically intriguing conspiracy story about another neoshaman (one of the admins of this NLP group).

With that really all too briefly summarised info, we might also summarize the red hat (feelings). This thread seems to show a little bit of indignance, some amazement, a bit of cynicism, and plenty of irony.

Black hat might give you some idea of what not to do. Plenty of suggestions not to get into the stick waving performance, lots of warning about not getting into more consipiracy theorizing (though unfortunately, more conspiracy theorizing)

Yellow hat tends to say its all a bit of fun. The conspiracy is entertaining, the neoshaman here is perfectly capable of looking after himself, just smile and keep on going.

Green hat; I have to say, Jamie seems to have all the ideas so far, though I am sure many more are incubating (perhaps the "suckers" will know what I mean). The main ideas seem to be about keeping more flexible (less simplistic) in response. Admitting to being an evil bastard has generally always worked for me, though only because of what the admission leads to. It generally allows you to stand back and look at the situation more level headedly.

Blue hat: So where to next? I know we are all supposed to wear the same hat at the same time. But as long at it inspires some ideas, its still a useful approach.

Rich

THREAD KILLER STRIKES AGAIN!

New thread, same argument, same approach, same drone. Where is YOUR flexibility?

"Admitting to being an evil bastard has generally always worked for me"

Admitting to a few more hometruths would allow you to see why I have stopped putting myself forward to be preached at by you. Are you sure Evil Bastard is correct? The only Evil thing I take from you and how you communicate is that I feel for your students, what a terrible time they must have at your Uni, they really must feel 'Lectured' in every meaning of the word.

I started a new thread that I deleted before I posted it on the forum. You may talk alot of repetitive shite but I will continue to give you the respect I pay to all humans regardless of the way my spontanious instincts want me to act. I was going to start a thread named

"What is the positive intention behind Rich Farnams attempt at reeducating the educated?"

Taking your posts at face value and putting the sock puppet/ silly muppet characteristics to one side I think you are repeatedly claiming your second hand knowledge and passing it off as your own as an attempt to sound educated and 'cleverer that thou'. You then hide your lack of NLP and Scientific abilty behind boring the crap out of people and then when nobody wants to talk to you you take that as a 'win', you are the only person competing so winning is a pretty hollow victory. You seek for answers to questions that nobody is asking and when no answers come forward you again interpret this as a 'win' and claim NLPers are too dumb to work the answers out. It is a little like at the end of one of your lectures when you ask, "any questions" and nobody puts their hands up. They are either not putting their hands up because you have covered everything they need to know and make it so clear that nothing is left to ask, or, you have not engaged, inspired or connected with your audience and the thought of spending another minute in your company is more painfull than walking out of the room with incomplete eduaction.

I hope you are a sock puppet and while that leaves egg on my face for falling for your trick it does mean that I can go back to thinking that 'real' people who study and understand the concepts of NLP are actually able to hold positive personality traits, and form entertaining and interesting company.

Like is say I resisted from starting that thread as it is a layered dig at you and I would not stoop so low.

As always, discard anything you dont like, put the blinkers on, stick in the same rigid groove that has served you so badly in the past and make what you want from my post.

Thanks

Matt

(To this point I have not mentioned the NLP v Science debate, my post is not about that and nor is this thread (until you turned up), I am not interested in being talked at by you regarding that subject, if anybody wants to continue that debate with some new evidence then I am all ears. So, take this post in the way that it is, some free feedback from a person who lives at the top of their own hill where you are all welcome to pop up and enjoy the peace and quiet and watch the world from YOUR OWN perspective without judging or being judged).

Hi Matt and Eric

The above process is not my idea. Its the De Bono six hat method. I'm not claiming its my own.

6 Thinking Hats - Bono de, Edward

Its designed to work towards parallel and productive thinking. Feel free to use it or ignore it as you wish. You currently seem to be restricted to using a mixture of black and red hat. Apparently those are important ways of thinking, but if you stay stuck on them you end up not designing ways forward.

My current view is that the way forward (blue hat) would be to iterate through the hats a few times with input from others. In that way you can get a broad range of views from more people.

Nobody has to join in. Its just a suggestion. And I like the way it results in a broad view and a wider range of alternatives.

Rich

I've never met a hat that thought, regardless of its colour.

But I have seen shit coming out of a sock.

Hi guys,

One thing to remember is that this is a great site to be able to talk, have fun, have discussions etc. etc.

There are some fantastic trainers to get advice from, this is also given freely, by top people in NLP.

Chris has given this opportunity and has worked hard to make a success of his career, as Gabe rightly puts it *the chosen one*.

Have fun

Val

What's all this about the *chosen one*?

Chosen by who, and for what? Are you all going to eat me?

I suspect you taste of jelly babies so perhaps a nibble.