3 ms·

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 po

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.

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.