Changes

== Beginning of personal remarks ==

== Beginning of personal remarks ==

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)

Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by '''''not''''' making articles state, imply, or insinuate '''''that only one side is correct'''''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Introduction]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". (User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon) 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)  

::::Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by '''''not''''' making articles state, imply, or insinuate '''''that only one side is correct'''''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Introduction]. What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)  

    

    

  :::This is turning towards the surreal. Hasn't this already been resolved? If MEDLINE doesn't index a particular journal then that journal -- and its constituent artcles -- carry little weight. MEDLINE employs an expert panel of scientists that decide what journals to index and which to exclude (refer the link I provided earlier). There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) ''and'' the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in ''Anchor Point'' and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)  

:This is turning towards the surreal. Hasn't this already been resolved? If MEDLINE doesn't index a particular journal then that journal -- and its constituent artcles -- carry little weight. MEDLINE employs an expert panel of scientists that decide what journals to index and which to exclude (refer the link I provided earlier). There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) ''and'' the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in ''Anchor Point'' and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum. (User:Flavius vanillus|flavius) 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28563818]

The irony of the situation -- which clearly escapes you, Comaze and FT2 -- is that NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion and belief modification. Where then are the persuasion skills and belief modification techniques? Why can't you magically disolve all objections? Surely you three NLP super beings can shift the beliefs of a simpleton like me. The inability of you, Comaze and FT2 to persuade in this instance is itself a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of NLP. In the process of attempting to persuade others of the efficacy of NLP -- and in failing abysmally -- you have inadvertantly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Delicious irony. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28586097]

::The irony of the situation -- which clearly escapes you, Comaze and FT2 -- is that NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion and belief modification. Where then are the persuasion skills and belief modification techniques? Why can't you magically disolve all objections? Surely you three NLP super beings can shift the beliefs of a simpleton like me. The inability of you, Comaze and FT2 to persuade in this instance is itself a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of NLP. In the process of attempting to persuade others of the efficacy of NLP -- and in failing abysmally -- you have inadvertantly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Delicious irony. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::I'll start this off:  

::I'll start this off:  

    

    

   :::"The psycholinguist Levelt (1995) passed devastating judgment on NLP: It is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions. NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming. NLP is not interested in the question as to how neurological processes take place, neither in serious research."  

   :::"The psycholinguist Levelt (1995) passed devastating judgment on NLP: It is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions. NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming. NLP is not interested in the question as to how neurological processes take place, neither in serious research."  

    

    

   ::WJM Levelt is a preeminent scholar and psycholinguist. Professor Levelt is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt). Professor Levelt's publications number in the hundreds (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt/Publications) and he is cited thousands of times (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=WJM+Levelt&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N).[[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)  

   ::WJM Levelt is a preeminent scholar and psycholinguist. Professor Levelt is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt). Professor Levelt's publications number in the hundreds (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt/Publications) and he is cited thousands of times (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=WJM+Levelt&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N).[[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28741426]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28798929

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=28798929