Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 2 November 2005

Archives

Archive01

Help with library searches NLP

Hello VoiceOfAll.

You voiced a desire to do some library searches, and as I have done plenty myself (and as so many NLP books have no index) I thought I could help you with it. Bandler and Grinders Structure of Magic (1975 II) has a representational system section using preferred as a synonym to primary on page 8 (he alludes to the concept of learning styles which is now classed as scientifically unsupported), and they obviously refer to PRS which of course is unsupported. They have a large section (one third of the last part of the book) on fuzzy functions which talks of VAK channels etc. The NLP theorists tend to use VAK engrams as you saw with the French web reference (Moeneart). So anyone who was taught NLP by Moenaert or Sinclair or anyone else with a psych theoretical background will see engrams wherever anyone mentions PRS, VAK or representational systems.

Later books also talk of PRS or RS. NLP business masterclass (Molden 1990) has a representative section on PRS (p76) and he talks of categorizing people by their preference also (very simplistic thinking according to psychology and of course sci unsupported).

IN Bandler's later books he uses PRS also (Time FOR a Change 1993). He places the shifty eye diagram in the appendix 1, and explains it exactly as he did in his previous early books (even though the research says it is wrong). BTW that book also calls schizophrenia a skill, and recommends that no drugs should be taken for it's treatment (page 107)(right on Tom Cruise!). Anyway, I will post more as I work through. RegardsHeadleyDown 09:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again VoiceOfAll. In Bandler and Grinder Structure of magic 1, (1975) they introduce the subject by refering to the teachings as "magical skills" (refer to the preface) and you may think that they are being metaphorical, but considering Bandler's teaching of shamanism, and Grinder's teaching of Carlos Castaneda and indian shamanism, I wonder! Anyway, they continue and talk about human behavior is really complex but has structure. The structure point is really important because that is where the hypotheses lay. Then they say how to read the book (page 3) and that it gives a set of tools (that do not work according to researchers). It recommends to do the exercises although there is no way of knowing if you are doing them right or not. Page 5 there is some adulation of Perls (the dianeticist), which says he was really intuitive and could leave you laughing or crying and doing his magic "he could take hold of the zipper of your facade and pull it down to expose your tortured soul". In fact the call them all theraputic wizards (p6). Page 9 gives an account by Aldous Huxley about how our brain records everything we have ever experienced (scientifically totally unverified hype) and then comes the theory:

The key theory (and yes they do theory though claim that they don't) is that we have 3 main channels VAK, and these are representational systems. We mostly have one main channel which can be identified. He says if we do not have words for explaining colours then we cannot do it well. This is nonsense. Even in 1969 Berlin & Kay had already disproved this in experiments. The recognition of colour by humans is a constant universal and has virtually junked the concept of linguistic relativism (Levelt 1995 gives a searing criticism of Bandler for this point).

Anyway, the book continues, there are parts about left and right brain, and overexagerations all over the place. One piece of exageration you may have noticed from the NLP users is that they use the word "generalisation" quite a lot. Contrast this with CBT (cog behavioural therapy's) term "overgeneralisation". To generalise is a normal communication mode of humans, it saves time and is normal. To overgeneralize can be unhealthy sometimes (it is a kind of distortion). If an NLP user wants to accuse you of fluffy thinking, they just have to pull out the generalization term whenever they feel like it. Sounds good, but its ultimately nonsense. Whatever! Good luck with the book review. RegardsHeadleyDown 11:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that "review" is completely biased. But anyway, I've reduce the warning on HeadleyDown's page to test3. A much more appropriate warning. --Comaze 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. I would recommend reading SHAM by Steve Salerno (2005). I read the NLP section and found it quite clarifying and well researched. It is also funny:) There is a whole section that cover's Bandler and Grinder, then moves on to TRobbins. It is in all of the bookshops I have been to recently on the self help section. Very easy reading.DaveRight 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Hi Voiceofall. Further to JP's recommendation to help your search, I've a useful review of Lilienfelds book here. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733240

It places NLP as pseudoscience in the review and in Lilienfeld's book. It also says that the book gives a balanced apprasial covering pseudo and non pseudo (supported) therapies. NLP comes out around the worst next to energy therapies, and other occult persuits. I read the book myself and its not too heavy, but really very much written for academics in my opinion, though the results are useful for consumer protection groups. I am a bit biased tho. I reckon Scott Lilienfeld is quite sexy:)AliceDeGrey 04:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The actual book is on print.google.com . Just search for neurolinguistic programming in the book. best regards --Comaze 11:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost RfA thanks

Thanks for your kind words and support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Getting close to time to archive this suckah, don't you think? =)

Anarchism

Hi, Voice of All(MTG)

In response to your question, yes, this is the vote in question and it is in support of what was then the prototype article Anarchism/historical, which was started by albamuth as a possible replacement for the hopelessly chaotic, disputed, and POV older article. The main Anarchism article was then changed to this historical version per the poll cited.

The edit war on the old article had been going on literally for years, and had been the subject of recent RFCs and (I believe) formal mediation. Essentially it is a dispute between users RJII, Hogeye, Dtobias, and MrVoluntarist (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of an aforementioned user) and the rest of the Anarchism editors. RJII and Hogeye are the main antagonists; RJII is relatively civil and makes good faith edits (although in my opinion still far too POV) but Hogeye has been known to repeatedly break the 3RR, uses sockpuppets extensively and has been banned for such behavior. In my opinion, PlayersPlace is Hogeye's newest sockpuppet.

The current historical version of the article is by far the best version since I've been editing the article, and is supported by consensus of the good faith editors of the article (even RJII).

Hope that gives you some background on the dispute. --Bk0 (Talk) 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Get off the NLP page you are doing damage. This is an overall game of scrimage What is it you hope to find when all that falls unwinds and your diplomatic aire may define

and all that is prevelant is the seeds of a plant grows a mystery evergranted by a stream of undisclosed society that has no means of education as a priority

Into nature of those who question the very words of love, passion, excitement a naive future is held like Alexander and Socrates But to know what you might find With fine intentions and other devices Holds a victory so sweet.

For victory is universal and felt by all Yes I am one who sees it all It does not stall or fall Flourishes by those who are involved Your deliberation does not help the world revolve

Cause all changes are quick and consequential Environment will be non sequential unless you let known knowledge to others That which is known to you And then we might see how mighty the human may fly through the sight of his mighty eye

A discipline so rare and grand may save the world once again.

"please brother our world is in peril the environment is in trouble and many ignore it's significance so as a NLPer I implore you promote this cause. Do not show ignorance. Use your voice for the good of the planet. I could too use all tools available to baffle people but I do not. In a short time this world will be dead. I will show any genius I have to prevent that. Human excellence is not enough. I could show amillion people how to be happy. Then there may not be a world to be happy in. yes a falacy it is that we as NLPers do not share this outcome but real it is and that we may have never been.

Get off the NLP page you are doing damage. This is an overall game of scrimage, What is it you hope to find, when all that falls unwinds, and your diplomatic aire may define,

and all that is prevelant, is the seeds of a plant, grows a mystery evergranted, by a stream of undisclosed society, that has no means of education as a priority,

Into nature of those who question, the very words of love, passion, excitement, a naive future is held like Alexander and Socrates, But to know what you might find , With fine intentions and other devices, Holds a victory so sweet,

For victory is universal and felt by all, Yes I am one who sees it all, It does not stall or fall, Flourishes by those who are involved, Your deliberation does not help the world revolve,

Cause all changes are quick and consequential, Environment will be non sequential, unless you let known knowledge to others, That which is known to you, And then we might see how mighty the human may fly, through the sight of his mighty eye,

A discipline so rare and grand, may save the world once again.

"please brother our world is in peril the environment is in trouble and many ignore it's significance so as a NLPer I implore you promote this cause. Do not show ignorance. Use your voice for the good of the planet. I could too use all tools available to baffle people but I do not. In a short time this world will be dead. I will show any genius I have to prevent that. Human excellence is not enough. I could show amillion people how to be happy. Then there may not be a world to be happy in. yes a falacy it is that we as NLPers do not share this outcome but real it is and that we may have never been.

NLP

How did mediation come up with an intro that is so blatantly biased against NLP? Was mediation simply mob rule? or was wikipedia policy used as a guiding principle at some point? I fail to see how the intro in any way shows the pro-NLP point of view, except through the slanted view of NLP critics. pseudoscientific or not, NPOV does not allow the critic to write the supporters point of view. "writing for the enemy" appears to have been lost here. Whaddup? FuelWagon 05:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about revert

Could you please take a look this revert. I have questions about it. . IMO, this information is not really represented properly, but I could be biased. You assistance would be greatly appreciated. Here are the relevant links:

• (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001, cited as Laso 2001)
• (Quackwatch/Barrett 2003 -> cites Heap 1988) - shouldn't this cite the original researcher?
• Sorting out Junk Science, Raso 2001 (as cited in Laso 2001) - This refernce seems to differe from the NCAHF News (Laso 2001) --Comaze 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi,

I am a bit concerned at the state of affairs on the NLP article, which I see you took over mediation of. HeadleyDown has finally agreed to mediation (see his talk page). Although I'm limiting my concern to the single question "How should NPOV be reflected in an article like this?" which should be very straightforward, I worry about the apparent size of gap there is to cross on this article.

I accept I would have to ask ArbCom to review this if mediation fails; I'm okay with that. But I don't want to pre-empt any attempt whereby editors could be encouraged to work together better.

I am still relatively new to the editing of this article (although not to the subject), and I'm aware a lot has gone on already which I'd like to get up to speed on. Could you therefore let me know your feelings on the following questions:

1. What is your assessment of the current state of play on the article? (Do you feel mediation is going anywhere/nowhere, what's the mediation history been, do you see hope for this angle, would you support referral to ArbCom at this point, if not what would happen in order to consider it a fair thing to do?)
2. Would you be prepared to mediate between myself and Headley on the one fixed issue of what is POV and what is NPOV and how does NPOV work on an article like this?
3. Would you be in a position to nudge that mediation along if so?
4. Has this approach (ie discussion of what comprises NPOV) been tried already? If so where's it at?

Comments appreciated. Thanks for all your work. FT2 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)