3 ms·

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 b

• 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
      i notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you have any actual experience with NLP at all? In any event, it really seems to me like you're more interested in insulting me than in learning about NLP, so I don't think there's any reason to continue talking about it, eh? > You're making the exact same arguments as homeopaths and faith healers and fortune tellers. I understand that there's a superficial resemblance and I hate that, but as I said, I don't know what to tell you. NLP is really easy, so if those "scientists" weren't able to measure something it's got to be "user error". I mean, I've personally done lots of experiments that show obvious results, so... I could go on but what's the point, eh? You've got your reality and I've got mine.