Changes

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Flavius Vanillus (view source)

Revision as of 11:35, 19 July 2008

93 bytes added ,  11:35, 19 July 2008
→‎Dialogue with Boward on NLP and pseudoscience
Line 8: Line 8:  
== Dialogue with Boward on NLP and pseudoscience ==
 
== Dialogue with Boward on NLP and pseudoscience ==
   −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28359188
   
::Boward's post addressed with inline commentary [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC):  
 
::Boward's post addressed with inline commentary [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC):  
 
:'The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences."'  
 
:'The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences."'  
Line 88: Line 87:  
:'I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.'  
 
:'I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.'  
 
    
 
    
−
::I don't think so. Many people -- including myself -- that are critical of NLP commenced its study without any preconceptions and biases and parted with many thousands of dollars attending seminars and purchasing video/audio tapes. A younger -- more naive -- version of me was drawn by the promises and claims of NLP only to find after many years and many dollars that the emperor has no clothes and that I had been duped. I never felt "threatened" or challenged by any aspect of NLP. I found that it doesn't work (the expensive way) and I had the courage to admit I had been deceived and swindled out of my money and proceeded to extricate myself from the NLP 'community'. Many NLPers assume that its not working because they haven't understood something and keep returning to seminars and buying more tapes and books hoping that it will eventually click. My investigations -- after I grieved my loss of time and money and resolved the implications to my self-identity if being taken for a ride -- confirmed my suspicions. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)  
+
::I don't think so. Many people -- including myself -- that are critical of NLP commenced its study without any preconceptions and biases and parted with many thousands of dollars attending seminars and purchasing video/audio tapes. A younger -- more naive -- version of me was drawn by the promises and claims of NLP only to find after many years and many dollars that the emperor has no clothes and that I had been duped. I never felt "threatened" or challenged by any aspect of NLP. I found that it doesn't work (the expensive way) and I had the courage to admit I had been deceived and swindled out of my money and proceeded to extricate myself from the NLP 'community'. Many NLPers assume that its not working because they haven't understood something and keep returning to seminars and buying more tapes and books hoping that it will eventually click. My investigations -- after I grieved my loss of time and money and resolved the implications to my self-identity if being taken for a ride -- confirmed my suspicions. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28359188]
    +
== Use of authoritative sources (Medline) ==
   −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28366748
+
If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation. This explains the imprecise language I mentioned earlier. I conjecture that most (80%+) of your citations are either not indexed by Medline, methodologically flawed or mispresented. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28366748]
−
::If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation. This explains the imprecise language I mentioned earlier. I conjecture that most (80%+) of your citations are either not indexed by Medline, methodologically flawed or mispresented. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      +
The characterisation of NLP as "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience" is the mainstream scientific evaluation of NLP. I expanded some FT2s brief citations into full citations. Most of the one's I expanded refer to obscure journals that aren't even indexed by Medline. Some are so obscure that I couldn't expand them and did an author/keyword search on Medline and failed to locate them. To "evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article" would constitute original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Literature reviews have been performed and they arrive at the view that NLP is "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28367340]
   −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28367340
  −
The characterisation of NLP as "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience" is the mainstream scientific evaluation of NLP. I expanded some FT2s brief citations into full citations. Most of the one's I expanded refer to obscure journals that aren't even indexed by Medline. Some are so obscure that I couldn't expand them and did an author/keyword search on Medline and failed to locate them. To "evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article" would constitute original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Literature reviews have been performed and they arrive at the view that NLP is "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
     −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28383667
+
[to 203.217.56.137]. As DaveRight below states you seem to have missed the point. You can look at the research that FT2 cited by all means. Understand though that specialists -- people that know more about the constituent topics (linguistics, neurology, psychopathology, trauma etc.) than you or I -- have reviewed the literature (at least that published in reputable journals) and concluded that it is bunkum. You are pretending that no research scientist is aware of the literature cited by FT2 and that new ground will potentially be broken on Wikipedia. This won't happen for at least two reasons: literature reviews have already been conducted and their conclusions are that NLP is unsupported scientificlly; and Wikipedia is not the place for original research (even if it is doomed to be still-born). Expanding the citations is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. My point in expanding what I could was to show that the journals cited are marginal, not credible, not reputable and hence unreliable. It says much about the marginality of the citations that I couldn't expand some of them ''at all''. FT2 has collected what is largely a bunch of junk research. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28383667]
−
203.217.56.137. As DaveRight below states you seem to have missed the point. You can look at the research that FT2 cited by all means. Understand though that specialists -- people that know more about the constituent topics (linguistics, neurology, psychopathology, trauma etc.) than you or I -- have reviewed the literature (at least that published in reputable journals) and concluded that it is bunkum. You are pretending that no research scientist is aware of the literature cited by FT2 and that new ground will potentially be broken on Wikipedia. This won't happen for at least two reasons: literature reviews have already been conducted and their conclusions are that NLP is unsupported scientificlly; and Wikipedia is not the place for original research (even if it is doomed to be still-born). Expanding the citations is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. My point in expanding what I could was to show that the journals cited are marginal, not credible, not reputable and hence unreliable. It says much about the marginality of the citations that I couldn't expand some of them ''at all''. FT2 has collected what is largely a bunch of junk research. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      +
GregA: ''Studia Psychologica'' -- the journal in which Drenth (2000) is published is/was indexed by Medline. The issue at hand is the credibility of the journals that published the research cited by FT2. I proposed the widely accepted heuristic of referring to whether the publication in question is or was indexed by Medline. Additionally we can check whether a given author has any publications in Medline indexed journals and we can use 'Google Scholar' to determine how many times a piece of research is cited by other researchers. I contend that you will find that most of FT2s citations are seldom cited and that the authors of the papers cited have few or no published papers in any journal indexed by Medline. I don't have the time to perform all this work and to be frank I'm not sure what the result will be if it is completed. Even at this stage it is plain that the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of expert opinion is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, of dubious value at best and outright fraudulent at worst. The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others. This is the 'elephant in the living room' that you, FT2, Comaze et al are doing your best to ignore. My concern is that the pro-NLP participants in this discussion have abandoned the basic premises of rational discourse and are instead engaging in 'religious wars'. The NLP artcile as it currently stands is neutral, it presents the claims of NLP proponents and the critical review which challenges those claims. The problem appears to be the unfavourable reviews by experts and the highlighting of the absence of evidence is unacceptable for those whose livelihood is connected to the practice of NLP. This is understandable but it is unacceptable. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28462737]
   −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28462737
+
GregA. So are you suggesting that the massive commercial edifice of NLP sits securely on seven studies -- that although published in reputable journals -- have obvious flaws, that I, a non-expert can point out. I'm beginning to think that you're not really serious about this matter. I've answered all of your questions (and some) yet you steadfastly refuse to yield even though you have no basis for maintaining your position. I'll repeat my line of argument. If a journal is not indexed by Medline its most likely not even worth citing. If it is indexed by Medline it is worth citing and critiquing. I have offered a short critique of those NLP-related papers that are indexed by Medline. This is entirely consistent with my stated position. Unfortunately -- for you, FT2, Comaze, the crackpot conspiracy theorist and NLP -- all of the NLP related studies that report a result in favor of NLP have one or more major flaws. We really needn't proceed any further, this alone confirms the report in the critical texts cited in the article that NLP is without scientific foundation. However, we can proceed further and make an even stronger case against NLP. There are studies published in reputable journals that don't support the core NLP theory of representational systems. We can go further yet. We know from the need to postulate meta-programs that another pillar of NLP theory -- cognitive strategies -- is invalid, lacking predictive or explanatory power. We can go even further. Neurology and linguistics -- two professional fields that are not tied to psychology and psychiatry and hence cannot be slandered with the usual Church of Scientology style propaganda -- reject NLP theory completely. Whenever I encounter a modern textbook, dictionary or encyclopedia on linguistics, psycohlinguistics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or neurology I always look up 'Neurolinguistic Programming' and I am yet to find an entry. NLP theory -- which makes many claims about psycholingustics and neurology -- has absolutely no currency in modern neurology or linguistics. Before you ask, I'm not going to give you a list of neurology and linguistics that do not mention NLP. Further, NLP has all of the characteristics of a pseudoscience (most notably it proposes unfalsifiable hypothesis, its theories have no predictive power and its research program is degenerating). Also, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of NLP proponents not its critics. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28494115]
−
::GregA. ''Studia Psychologica'' -- the journal in which Drenth (2000) is published is/was indexed by Medline. The issue at hand is the credibility of the journals that published the research cited by FT2. I proposed the widely accepted heuristic of referring to whether the publication in question is or was indexed by Medline. Additionally we can check whether a given author has any publications in Medline indexed journals and we can use 'Google Scholar' to determine how many times a piece of research is cited by other researchers. I contend that you will find that most of FT2s citations are seldom cited and that the authors of the papers cited have few or no published papers in any journal indexed by Medline. I don't have the time to perform all this work and to be frank I'm not sure what the result will be if it is completed. Even at this stage it is plain that the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of expert opinion is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, of dubious value at best and outright fraudulent at worst. The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others. This is the 'elephant in the living room' that you, FT2, Comaze et al are doing your best to ignore. My concern is that the pro-NLP participants in this discussion have abandoned the basic premises of rational discourse and are instead engaging in 'religious wars'. The NLP artcile as it currently stands is neutral, it presents the claims of NLP proponents and the critical review which challenges those claims. The problem appears to be the unfavourable reviews by experts and the highlighting of the absence of evidence is unacceptable for those whose livelihood is connected to the practice of NLP. This is understandable but it is unacceptable. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
     −
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28494115
+
== Beginning of personal remarks ==
−
GregA. So are you suggesting that the massive commercial edifice of NLP sits securely on seven studies -- that although published in reputable journals -- have obvious flaws, that I, a non-expert can point out. I'm beginning to think that you're not really serious about this matter. I've answered all of your questions (and some) yet you steadfastly refuse to yield even though you have no basis for maintaining your position. I'll repeat my line of argument. If a journal is not indexed by Medline its most likely not even worth citing. If it is indexed by Medline it is worth citing and critiquing. I have offered a short critique of those NLP-related papers that are indexed by Medline. This is entirely consistent with my stated position. Unfortunately -- for you, FT2, Comaze, the crackpot conspiracy theorist and NLP -- all of the NLP related studies that report a result in favor of NLP have one or more major flaws. We really needn't proceed any further, this alone confirms the report in the critical texts cited in the article that NLP is without scientific foundation. However, we can proceed further and make an even stronger case against NLP. There are studies published in reputable journals that don't support the core NLP theory of representational systems. We can go further yet. We know from the need to postulate meta-programs that another pillar of NLP theory -- cognitive strategies -- is invalid, lacking predictive or explanatory power. We can go even further. Neurology and linguistics -- two professional fields that are not tied to psychology and psychiatry and hence cannot be slandered with the usual Church of Scientology style propaganda -- reject NLP theory completely. Whenever I encounter a modern textbook, dictionary or encyclopedia on linguistics, psycohlinguistics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or neurology I always look up 'Neurolinguistic Programming' and I am yet to find an entry. NLP theory -- which makes many claims about psycholingustics and neurology -- has absolutely no currency in modern neurology or linguistics. Before you ask, I'm not going to give you a list of neurology and linguistics that do not mention NLP. Further, NLP has all of the characteristics of a pseudoscience (most notably it proposes unfalsifiable hypothesis, its theories have no predictive power and its research program is degenerating). Also, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of NLP proponents not its critics. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=28548746 (Personal remarks stuff begins)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=28548746 (Personal remarks stuff begins)
−
      
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28563818
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28563818
Line 281: Line 276:     
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=34362076
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=34362076
 +
 
== Alleged ''Frogs'' Quote ==  
 
== Alleged ''Frogs'' Quote ==  
 
    
 
    
Ockham
3,209

edits

Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/Special:MobileDiff/68789"

Navigation menu