Changes

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35325297]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35325297]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35334031

The term "model" is ambiguous in conventional English usage. In science the term model finds two common uses: (a) to describe a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true under a well-defined set of circumstances eg. Hooke's Law of Elasticity is in fact a model because it holds for only some materials under certain loading conditions; and (b) a simulation (in software, sets of equations, in miniature etc), eg. an albegraic epidemological model of the spread of HIV. NLP meets neither definition. Calling NLP a model elevates it epistemologically beyond where it should be (determined with reference to explanatory power, predictive power and efficacy). NLP is a hodge-podege of conjecture, speculation, mysticism, obscurantism, outdated and/or oversimplified science and ritual. flavius 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35334031]

The term "model" is ambiguous in conventional English usage. In science the term model finds two common uses: (a) to describe a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true under a well-defined set of circumstances eg. Hooke's Law of Elasticity is in fact a model because it holds for only some materials under certain loading conditions; and (b) a simulation (in software, sets of equations, in miniature etc), eg. an albegraic epidemological model of the spread of HIV. NLP meets neither definition. Calling NLP a model elevates it epistemologically beyond where it should be (determined with reference to explanatory power, predictive power and efficacy). NLP is a hodge-podege of conjecture, speculation, mysticism, obscurantism, outdated and/or oversimplified science and ritual. flavius 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"TG has developed through a number of versions, each succeeding the other. In his 1957 book Syntactic Structures, Chomsky provided only a partial sketch of a very simple type of transformational grammar. This proved to be inadequate, and, in his 1965 book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky proposed a very different, and much more complete, version. This version is variously known as the Aspects model or as the Standard Theory. All textbooks of TG published before 1980 (and a few of those published more recently) present what is essentially the Standard Theory, sometimes with a few additions from later work. Around 1968 the Standard Theory came under attack from a group of younger linguists who hoped to equate deep structure, previously a purely syntactic level of representation, with the semantic structure of a sentence (its meaning). This programme, called Generative Semantics, led to the positing of ever more abstract underlying structures for sentences; it proved unworkable, and it finally collapsed. Around the same time, two mathematical linguists demonstrated that standard TG was so enormously powerful that it could, in principle, describe anything which could be described at all—a potentially catastrophic result, since the whole point of a theory of grammar is to tell us what is possible in languages and what is not possible. Yet these Peters—Ritchie results suggested that TG was placing no constraints at all on what the grammar of a human language could be like. Chomsky responded to all this in the early 1970s by introducing a number of changes to his framework; the result became known as the Extended Standard Theory, or EST. By the late 1970s further changes had led to a radically different version dubbed the Revised Extended Standard Theory, or REST. Among the major innovations of the REST were the introduction of traces, invisible flags marking the former positions of elements which had been moved, a reduction in the number of distinct transformations from dozens to just two, and a switch of attention away from the transformations themselves to the constraints which applied to them. But Chomsky continued to develop his ideas, and in 1981 he published Lectures on Government and Binding; this book swept away much of the apparatus of the earlier transformational theories in favour of a dramatically different, and far more complex, approach called Government-andBinding Theory, or GB. GB retains exactly one transformation, and, in spite of the obvious continuity between the new framework and its predecessors, the name 'transformational grammar' is not usually applied to GB or to its even more recent successor, the Minimalist Programme. Hence, for purposes of linguistic research, transformational grammar may now be regarded as dead, though its influence has been enormous, and its successors are maximally prominent. (from pp. 320-1 Trask, R. L. (1999) Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics, Routledge)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming"

See also "My carefully considered and well earned aversion to Noam Chomsky"[http://pedantry.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_pedantry_archive.html] and [http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm] [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)  

  :::::See also "My carefully considered and well earned aversion to Noam Chomsky"[http://pedantry.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_pedantry_archive.html] and [http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm] [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)  

Avoid personal remarks Flavius. Please take care to avoid personal attacks against Wikipedia users -- in reference to your comments:

Avoid personal remarks

Flavius. Please take care to avoid personal attacks against Wikipedia users -- in reference to your comments:

"Again you are parading your ignorance." [7]  

"Again you are parading your ignorance." [7]  

Cynicism. flavius 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)  

Cynicism. flavius 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)  

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flavius_vanillus"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=35502912]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=36893783

== Dianetics and NLP ==

Comaze, I think you're being mischevious (again). Edwards' position is widely held, for this reason it is not necessary (and misleding) to attribute it specifically to him. It is apparent that you are attempting to create the illusion of isolation and idiosyncracy, painting Edwards' view as the lonely voice of a eccentric contrarian. As HeadleyDown correctly points out, that view is shared by many experts, it is the consensus view. We don't need a third party opinion on this. The easy solution (if we are to accept your view that there is a problem) is to rephrase the statement so that it bears no resemblance to Edwards' whilst retaining the content and embellishing it with the numerous references that argue the same point. Clearly, you and GregA are unwilling to accept NLPs status as marginalia in the history of ideas. You and GregA reject ''all'' negative expert opinion regarding NLP ''wholesale''. This is fanatical, cultish and irrational behaviour. Yours and GregA's position is fundamentally emotive and disconnected from reality (yes John Grinder there is ''a'' reality) that is why your dispute is non-justiciable. It is a matter of fact that a minority of universities and colleges teach NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and pastors practice NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of all professionals (in all categories) use NLP. It is a matter of fact that a minority of the human population have had training in NLP. It is a matter of fact that most topic experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, philosophers and neurologists) that have researched NLP have concluded against it. It is a matter of fact that most topic experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, philosophers and neurologists) have either not heard of NLP or if they have regard it as bunkum. It is a matter of fact that NLP was written off in the early 1990s as not worthy of any further research. It is a matter of fact that NLP often appears amongst a constellation of New Age concerns in trainings, books, therapies and personal interests. NLP is not an "epistemology", it hasn't got anything to do with philosophy, maths or logic, it isn't applied psychology, it isn't science, it isn't art, it isn't craft, it isn't a "bridge between empriricism and rationalism", it isn't ''the'' study of subjective experience, it isn't a means of accelerated learning, it isn't the tip of an emerging paradigm shift. It's just a great big steaming pile of Californian New Age, Human Potential horse shit that has become big business. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above article text mentioned by Akulkis does not seem too problematic to me, as the engram is much different in NLP than in neurology. The Scientology associations do seem a little over the top. The research and reviews alone will do here, and we have plenty of them. BTW, lets try to avoid personal attacks, even against other people who use them.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)  

The above article text mentioned by Akulkis does not seem too problematic to me, as the engram is much different in NLP than in neurology. The Scientology associations do seem a little over the top. The research and reviews alone will do here, and we have plenty of them. BTW, lets try to avoid personal attacks, even against other people who use them.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''^{[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font>} 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)  

(UTC)  ::::::Should we remove the unnecessary repeats of Dianetics/scientology? --[[User:Comaze|Comaze]] 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)  

(UTC)   

 

Should we remove the unnecessary repeats of Dianetics/scientology? --[[User:Comaze|Comaze]] 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)  

    

    

  :::::::Hold your horses. I'm currently (re-)reading ''Dianetics'' and you'll be suprised about the similarities between Dianetics and NLP. Dianetics contains an explicit understanding of sensorially encoded memory, the characteristics of those encodings in terms of their sense-specific qualities (ie. submodalities), "reverie" (i.e. light trance), the notion of a "time track" (not unlike the NLP time line), an explicit appeal to instrumentalist epistemology, an explicit understanding of associated/dissociated memory, it's replete with IT metaphors and jargon (just like NLP) and the auditing process itself bears numerous similarites to VK dissociation, Time Line Therapy, submodality attenuation and collapsing anchors. Lee Lady conjectures the role of CoS as a template for B&G:  

Hold your horses. I'm currently (re-)reading ''Dianetics'' and you'll be suprised about the similarities between Dianetics and NLP. Dianetics contains an explicit understanding of sensorially encoded memory, the characteristics of those encodings in terms of their sense-specific qualities (ie. submodalities), "reverie" (i.e. light trance), the notion of a "time track" (not unlike the NLP time line), an explicit appeal to instrumentalist epistemology, an explicit understanding of associated/dissociated memory, it's replete with IT metaphors and jargon (just like NLP) and the auditing process itself bears numerous similarites to VK dissociation, Time Line Therapy, submodality attenuation and collapsing anchors. Lee Lady conjectures the role of CoS as a template for B&G:  

    

    

  ::::::::For a while, Bandler and Grinder thought that they could turn NLP into a product which could be promoted to the general public for a lot of money. I'm sure that they must have had the examples of L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Erhard in mind. (You have to remember that at this point they had no academic position and were living on the edge of poverty. But of course this sort of attitude certainly didn't endear them to the academic world.) (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history-3.html)  

For a while, Bandler and Grinder thought that they could turn NLP into a product which could be promoted to the general public for a lot of money. I'm sure that they must have had the examples of L. Ron Hubbard and Werner Erhard in mind. (You have to remember that at this point they had no academic position and were living on the edge of poverty. But of course this sort of attitude certainly didn't endear them to the academic world.) (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history-3.html)  

    

    

   :::::::Lady's conjecture is not unusual. Hubbard and Erhardt served as pioneers for the New Age/Human Potential industry. It was my intention to detail these many parallels in this subsection of the discussion page in an effeort to put the myth that NLP has nothing to do with Dianetics to bed. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)  

   :::::::Lady's conjecture is not unusual. Hubbard and Erhardt served as pioneers for the New Age/Human Potential industry. It was my intention to detail these many parallels in this subsection of the discussion page in an effeort to put the myth that NLP has nothing to do with Dianetics to bed. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=36893783]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=37522689

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=37522689