Changes

== NLP use by professionals ==

== NLP use by professionals ==

Comaze, I would like to put this issue to bed (forever) so I'll respond to each of your points.  

Comaze, I would like to put this issue to bed (forever) so I'll respond to each of your points.  

  :::''There are published POVs (including in PubMed) that back up the view that people use NLP as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses.''  

:''There are published POVs (including in PubMed) that back up the view that people use NLP as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses.''  

  :::So what? Since when was the point that people (attempt to) use NLP ever in contention? Similarly, when and where was it disputed that various (misguided) professionals (attempt to) use NLP in the context of their professions? What does this prove? Are you suggesting that because Mr Salesman claims that his success is due to NLP does that establish the efficacy of NLP? When John Travolta tells us "I have been a successful actor for more than twenty years and Scientology has played a major role in that success. I have a wonderful child and a great marriage because I apply L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this area of my life" [http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part05/chp19/pg0308.html] does this count as evidence that Dianetics works and that Scientology is a life-enhancing "technology"? Is it not possible that John Travolta is mistaken or that he is delusional?  

So what? Since when was the point that people (attempt to) use NLP ever in contention? Similarly, when and where was it disputed that various (misguided) professionals (attempt to) use NLP in the context of their professions? What does this prove? Are you suggesting that because Mr Salesman claims that his success is due to NLP does that establish the efficacy of NLP? When John Travolta tells us "I have been a successful actor for more than twenty years and Scientology has played a major role in that success. I have a wonderful child and a great marriage because I apply L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this area of my life" [http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part05/chp19/pg0308.html] does this count as evidence that Dianetics works and that Scientology is a life-enhancing "technology"? Is it not possible that John Travolta is mistaken or that he is delusional?  

  :::''My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of ''logical fallacy'' -- I know the difference.''  

:''My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of ''logical fallacy'' -- I know the difference.''  

  :::Your thinking on this matter is entirely unclear, you are guilty of numerous failings of reasoning:  

Your thinking on this matter is entirely unclear, you are guilty of numerous failings of reasoning:  

  ##You repeatedly attempt to minimise the relevance of criticisim by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of NLP on an ''ad hoc'' basis. When something looks really bad for NLP you claim that the criticised aspect isn't ''really'' NLP.  

##You repeatedly attempt to minimise the relevance of criticisim by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of NLP on an ''ad hoc'' basis. When something looks really bad for NLP you claim that the criticised aspect isn't ''really'' NLP.  

  ##You blindly repeat the bloviations of Grinder regarding the alleged intellectual antecedents of NLP without being able to demonstrate a substantive connection between NLP and automata theory, genetic algorithms, Russell's Theory of Types etc. When pressed on this matter you conveniently ignore the promptings.  

##You blindly repeat the bloviations of Grinder regarding the alleged intellectual antecedents of NLP without being able to demonstrate a substantive connection between NLP and automata theory, genetic algorithms, Russell's Theory of Types etc. When pressed on this matter you conveniently ignore the promptings.  

  ##You ignore that numerous aspects of NLP have been throughly discredited: Bateson's "double-bind" theory of schizophrenia, TG, eye accessing cues, PRS, human mind as ''tabula rasa'', (all) mental illness as learnt etc.   

##You ignore that numerous aspects of NLP have been throughly discredited: Bateson's "double-bind" theory of schizophrenia, TG, eye accessing cues, PRS, human mind as ''tabula rasa'', (all) mental illness as learnt etc.   

  ##You mouth Grinders (naive) pontifications about epistemology without understanding what you are parroting or the implications of what you are parroting. Even if NLP were based on "cybernetic epistemology" and fictionalism was sound the burden of rigorous empirical testing remains. "NLP can cure depression" is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Whether NLP can or can't cure depression is a statement about the universe. The best method devised for testing hypothesis about the universe is the scientific method. Irrespective of how the NLP treatment for depression was arrived we still have the problem of "Does NLP work better than placebo in treating depression?". There is no escaping this problem.  

##You mouth Grinders (naive) pontifications about epistemology without understanding what you are parroting or the implications of what you are parroting. Even if NLP were based on "cybernetic epistemology" and fictionalism was sound the burden of rigorous empirical testing remains. "NLP can cure depression" is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Whether NLP can or can't cure depression is a statement about the universe. The best method devised for testing hypothesis about the universe is the scientific method. Irrespective of how the NLP treatment for depression was arrived we still have the problem of "Does NLP work better than placebo in treating depression?". There is no escaping this problem.  

  :::''I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics.''  

:''I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics.''  

  :::You may have a great deal of ''interest'' in logic and mathematics but you apparently have little ''understanding''. Russell's theory of types is dead, you don't appear to understand inferential statistics or inductive logic.   

You may have a great deal of ''interest'' in logic and mathematics but you apparently have little ''understanding''. Russell's theory of types is dead, you don't appear to understand inferential statistics or inductive logic.   

  :::''In this discussion my interest in NLP is purely from a Neutral Point of View.''  

:''In this discussion my interest in NLP is purely from a Neutral Point of View.''  

  :::No, it definitely isn't NPOV. You are a promoter and advocate and you have a zeal that is almost religious. NLP is basically a "snake oil" business. The advocacy that you are engaged in is especially unethical because NLP isn't free, it costs big bucks. Not only is their insuffcient evidence of the efficacy of NLP there is substantial evidence that it doesn't work. It is unethical to charge people AU$100.00/hour for treatment that doesn't work or AU$5000.00 for a melange of ritual, pop-psychology, brain myths, B-grade philosophy and anecdotes.  

No, it definitely isn't NPOV. You are a promoter and advocate and you have a zeal that is almost religious. NLP is basically a "snake oil" business. The advocacy that you are engaged in is especially unethical because NLP isn't free, it costs big bucks. Not only is their insuffcient evidence of the efficacy of NLP there is substantial evidence that it doesn't work. It is unethical to charge people AU$100.00/hour for treatment that doesn't work or AU$5000.00 for a melange of ritual, pop-psychology, brain myths, B-grade philosophy and anecdotes.  

  :::''I'll check out Drenth and Levelt, but initial keyword search of the Beyerstein refs shows no results for NLP or neurolinguistic programming. Does Beyerstein actually research NLP, if so, do you have the paper? If the only connection to Beyerstein is via Drenth, then it needs to be presented in the article in this manner.''  

:''I'll check out Drenth and Levelt, but initial keyword search of the Beyerstein refs shows no results for NLP or neurolinguistic programming. Does Beyerstein actually research NLP, if so, do you have the paper? If the only connection to Beyerstein is via Drenth, then it needs to be presented in the article in this manner.''  

  :::That you haven't investigated Drenth or Levelt yet is indicative of your bad faith, they have been in the article for months. Beyerstein is a physiological psychologist and psychopharmacologist and he pans NLP in his paper Beyerstein, B.L. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the new age. ''International Journal of Mental Health'', 19, 27-36. Beyerstein is cited by Drenth (IIRC) and Tye. Levelt also shit-canned NLP. What is your response? Are Beyerstein and Levelt ignorant dickheads that don't know what they are talking about? Does Grinder know more about psycholinguistics than Levelt (an acknowledged worldwide authority on the subject)? Does Grinder know more about Beyerstein (a recognised expert on the biological bases of behaviour)? The whole world is wrong expect Grinder, Malloy and Tossey?  

That you haven't investigated Drenth or Levelt yet is indicative of your bad faith, they have been in the article for months. Beyerstein is a physiological psychologist and psychopharmacologist and he pans NLP in his paper Beyerstein, B.L. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the new age. ''International Journal of Mental Health'', 19, 27-36. Beyerstein is cited by Drenth (IIRC) and Tye. Levelt also shit-canned NLP. What is your response? Are Beyerstein and Levelt ignorant dickheads that don't know what they are talking about? Does Grinder know more about psycholinguistics than Levelt (an acknowledged worldwide authority on the subject)? Does Grinder know more about Beyerstein (a recognised expert on the biological bases of behaviour)? The whole world is wrong expect Grinder, Malloy and Tossey?  

  :::''Let's enforce some academic standards here. The infighting is sounds like what is happening between various factions in psychology -- some psychology factions want adopt methods of hard science -- good luck.''  

:''Let's enforce some academic standards here. The infighting is sounds like what is happening between various factions in psychology -- some psychology factions want adopt methods of hard science -- good luck.''  

  :::Are you suggesting that human behavior can't be studied experimentally? If you are then you have a "tough brief". Social psychology has yielded many useful and valid results using an experimental approach. Are you familiar with at least the classical papers in social psychology such as Milgram (1963), Darley & Latané (1968), Nisbett & Bellows (1977), Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)? There is contention within psychology (in some areas) and psycho-cults prosper because we know very little about the brain. NLP is parasitic on our (comparative) ignorance regarding the brain. Physics -- the field that defines "hard science" -- was once a branch of philosophy. During this pre-mathematical and pre-experimental phase there was much dispute amongst "natural philosophers" about the fundamental concepts in introductory physics. It was not the nature of the subject matter that produced this contention it was instead the ignorance of the physicists of the time. The hypotheses of eccentrics versus epicycles is no longer an issue of contention amongst astronomers, chemists no longer argue about "phlogiston", and physicians are no divided about the role of the heart. This is the pattern in the history of science. The psychology of the future will be much more biological in orientation than it currently is, it will be better informed about neurophysiology and genetics. Also, you are overstating the division within psychology and misunderstanding th trends within psychology. I don't know of a University in Australia whose department of psychology ''doesn't'' teach experimental psychology. Furthermore, all of the psychology departments are heavily influenced by physiology. The trend in psychology is towards biological psychology. Psychology syllabi are throughly infused with statistical methods and research design (it is impossible to get a major in psychology without studying statistics). Psychology has rid itself of its pseudoscientific heritage -- psychoanalysis (Freud) and analytical psychology (Jung) are pretty much dead. There are no major debates about method within psychology. Modern psychology is experimental psychology. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  

Are you suggesting that human behavior can't be studied experimentally? If you are then you have a "tough brief". Social psychology has yielded many useful and valid results using an experimental approach. Are you familiar with at least the classical papers in social psychology such as Milgram (1963), Darley & Latané (1968), Nisbett & Bellows (1977), Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)? There is contention within psychology (in some areas) and psycho-cults prosper because we know very little about the brain. NLP is parasitic on our (comparative) ignorance regarding the brain. Physics -- the field that defines "hard science" -- was once a branch of philosophy. During this pre-mathematical and pre-experimental phase there was much dispute amongst "natural philosophers" about the fundamental concepts in introductory physics. It was not the nature of the subject matter that produced this contention it was instead the ignorance of the physicists of the time. The hypotheses of eccentrics versus epicycles is no longer an issue of contention amongst astronomers, chemists no longer argue about "phlogiston", and physicians are no divided about the role of the heart. This is the pattern in the history of science. The psychology of the future will be much more biological in orientation than it currently is, it will be better informed about neurophysiology and genetics. Also, you are overstating the division within psychology and misunderstanding th trends within psychology. I don't know of a University in Australia whose department of psychology ''doesn't'' teach experimental psychology. Furthermore, all of the psychology departments are heavily influenced by physiology. The trend in psychology is towards biological psychology. Psychology syllabi are throughly infused with statistical methods and research design (it is impossible to get a major in psychology without studying statistics). Psychology has rid itself of its pseudoscientific heritage -- psychoanalysis (Freud) and analytical psychology (Jung) are pretty much dead. There are no major debates about method within psychology. Modern psychology is experimental psychology. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35007412]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35008506

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35008506