4 ms·

You know that neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit, right? Normally I give people the benefit of the doubt and presume they m

You know that neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit, right? Normally I give people the benefit of the doubt and presume they meant natural language processing and expanded the acronym wrong, but I can't see how that could apply here.

carapace 8y ago
Yes, I meant the other NLP. > You know that neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit, right? I know no such thing. I'll grant you that most of the people talking about it, and many of the practitioners, are saying "pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit", and that's extraordinarily unfortunate. Nevertheless, the foundations and principles of NLP are sound and the reproducible results should not be ignored. NLP develops algorithms for change that work. Is it a scientific body of knowledge? No. But it should be. We should do science to it. I'll point out that it originates with an application of Chomsky's Transformational Grammar to transcripts of therapy sessions with very effective therapists (Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erikson. I think I spelled the names right.) It's not pseudoscience because it doesn't claim to be scientific. Despite it's unscientific nature it does provide reliable, repeatable algorithms for overcoming our worser natures. We can use the techniques without buying into any "new age magic bullshit" whatsoever. The whole point is that you don't have to believe in any particular thing to have the techniques work. It's like aspirin. You don't have to believe in aspirin to relieve your headache with it. Aspirin doesn't care. NLP is the same way. In fact, you can alter your belief structures using NLP, so logically it's ontological status must be "meta-belief", but that's getting way far afield. My main point stands: NLP works. (So who cares if it's wrapped in astrology or the "Enneagram", or wearing rubber pants? We can clean it up later when the fire has been put out, eh?)
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Science has been applied to it many times. It "works" insomuch as people feel better after they're told that they're getting treatment. It has never shown to be more effective than a sugar pill. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The most favorable paper to neurolinguistic programming in the entire literature amounts to "some people say it makes them feel better, therefore evidence doesn't matter"[9] So yeah, sure, it "works" in exactly the same way as kisses from mom on your boo-boos "works". It might make you stop crying for a while, but that is not how a rational person measures effective treatment. 1. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-21020-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-21020-001 2. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0167.34.1.103 http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0167.34... 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.... 4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920010212 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920010... 5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.... 6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920080403 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920080... 7. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/ppb/41/2/article-p58.xml https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/ppb/41/2/article-p... 8. http://web.archive.org/web/20120905075141/http://jarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20120905075141/http://jarhe.resea... 9. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17465641011042035 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/1746564101104...
  - carapace 8y ago
    I don't know what to tell you, other than those "scientists" must have been doing it wrong. I mean it. What you have presented above is pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing (2018) methodological crisis in the social and soft sciences in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. These are not physicists. Their inability to measure some effect of NLP techniques argues for their incompetence, not the non-existence of the effects. NLP isn't hard. I don't consider myself a practitioner, but I have some experience applying NLP to get definite results. The techniques work. "Submodality" manipulation alone should garner a Nobel prize. Let me ask you, do you have any direct, personal experience with NLP? In other words, what's your motivation here? You're not going to convince me it's bunk, because I overcame crippling depression using it, and because I understand the principles and they make sense. (Most of them, there are NLP-derived techniques that work but no one know why. The so-called "VK Squash" for example. Profound effects without a trace of theory as to why.) Am I going to convince you? Maybe we should talk about NVC instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      My dude. Please go get yourself some education on how science works. I feel embarrassed for you. The reproducibility crisis is about the prevalence of false positive results in the scientific literature. This video is a good primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q A false positive is when a paper says "this works" when it actually doesn't, because of a statistical fluke in their sample. Even if citing the reproducibility crisis as an excuse to believe something that science has repeatedly found to be false isn't a really bad reason for belief (which it definitely is)... it doesn't even apply because there can't be false positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming because there aren't any positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming. Even the paper put out by neurolinguistic programming practicioners themselves wasn't able to produce a detectable effect over a placebo. I'm sorry, my friend, but this is an intervention. You're in a cult. You're making the exact same arguments as homeopaths and faith healers and fortune tellers.

carapace 8y ago

Yes, I meant the other NLP. > You know that neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit, right? I know no such thing. I'll grant you that most of the people talking about it, and many of the practitioners, are saying "pseudoscientific new age magic bullshit", and that's extraordinarily unfortunate. Nevertheless, the foundations and principles of NLP are sound and the reproducible results should not be ignored. NLP develops algorithms for change that work. Is it a scientific body of knowledge? No. But it should be. We should do science to it. I'll point out that it originates with an application of Chomsky's Transformational Grammar to transcripts of therapy sessions with very effective therapists (Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erikson. I think I spelled the names right.) It's not pseudoscience because it doesn't claim to be scientific. Despite it's unscientific nature it does provide reliable, repeatable algorithms for overcoming our worser natures. We can use the techniques without buying into any "new age magic bullshit" whatsoever. The whole point is that you don't have to believe in any particular thing to have the techniques work. It's like aspirin. You don't have to believe in aspirin to relieve your headache with it. Aspirin doesn't care. NLP is the same way. In fact, you can alter your belief structures using NLP, so logically it's ontological status must be "meta-belief", but that's getting way far afield. My main point stands: NLP works. (So who cares if it's wrapped in astrology or the "Enneagram", or wearing rubber pants? We can clean it up later when the fire has been put out, eh?)

hannasanarion 8y ago
Science has been applied to it many times. It "works" insomuch as people feel better after they're told that they're getting treatment. It has never shown to be more effective than a sugar pill. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The most favorable paper to neurolinguistic programming in the entire literature amounts to "some people say it makes them feel better, therefore evidence doesn't matter"[9] So yeah, sure, it "works" in exactly the same way as kisses from mom on your boo-boos "works". It might make you stop crying for a while, but that is not how a rational person measures effective treatment. 1. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-21020-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-21020-001 2. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0167.34.1.103 http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0167.34... 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20070615185758/http://www.mheap.... 4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920010212 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920010... 5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.... 6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920080403 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.3920080... 7. https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/ppb/41/2/article-p58.xml https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/ppb/41/2/article-p... 8. http://web.archive.org/web/20120905075141/http://jarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20120905075141/http://jarhe.resea... 9. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17465641011042035 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/1746564101104...
- carapace 8y ago
  I don't know what to tell you, other than those "scientists" must have been doing it wrong. I mean it. What you have presented above is pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing (2018) methodological crisis in the social and soft sciences in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. These are not physicists. Their inability to measure some effect of NLP techniques argues for their incompetence, not the non-existence of the effects. NLP isn't hard. I don't consider myself a practitioner, but I have some experience applying NLP to get definite results. The techniques work. "Submodality" manipulation alone should garner a Nobel prize. Let me ask you, do you have any direct, personal experience with NLP? In other words, what's your motivation here? You're not going to convince me it's bunk, because I overcame crippling depression using it, and because I understand the principles and they make sense. (Most of them, there are NLP-derived techniques that work but no one know why. The so-called "VK Squash" for example. Profound effects without a trace of theory as to why.) Am I going to convince you? Maybe we should talk about NVC instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    My dude. Please go get yourself some education on how science works. I feel embarrassed for you. The reproducibility crisis is about the prevalence of false positive results in the scientific literature. This video is a good primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q A false positive is when a paper says "this works" when it actually doesn't, because of a statistical fluke in their sample. Even if citing the reproducibility crisis as an excuse to believe something that science has repeatedly found to be false isn't a really bad reason for belief (which it definitely is)... it doesn't even apply because there can't be false positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming because there aren't any positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming. Even the paper put out by neurolinguistic programming practicioners themselves wasn't able to produce a detectable effect over a placebo. I'm sorry, my friend, but this is an intervention. You're in a cult. You're making the exact same arguments as homeopaths and faith healers and fortune tellers.