8 ms·

Any suggested reading for #1 ("learn how to navigate \$THIS.")?

texuf 4y ago
It’s old and perhaps a little controversial, but “ NLP: The New Technology of Achievement” has good examples and abstractions that could help you with #1
- icepat 4y ago
  Controversial in that it's generally considered a pseudoscience. I'd advise against anyone looking to figure out how to navigate this wasting their time with pseudosciences.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > it's generally considered a pseudoscience. Only by people who have no experience with it. NLP ("Neurolinguistic Programming", not Natural Language Processing) is pre-scientific, yes, but that's not the same as being a pseudoscience, and calling it such is a disservice. We have pretty much discovered the operating system of the human mind. applying the principles and techniques discovered and systematized under the rubric of NLP one can do amazing things. - - - - It is strange that academic research psychologists seem to have trouble with it. But that's their problem, it doesn't change the fact that people all over the world are learning and using this stuff every day. If academic psychologists can't understand it that just makes them irrelevant, it doesn't change the facts.
    - brokensegue 4y ago
      Plenty of people all over the world are learning and using the teachings of Scientology. That doesn't make them right or even useful
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      I don’t really care about this one or the other but you’re taking about this thing exactly the way cultists do. It doesn’t lend it any credence. Why would the “evil scientists” be so against your ideology, specifically? Academics publish papers on all kinds of things. This is the same type of stuff of Gene Ray or flat-Earthers etc.
      - carapace 4y ago
        For someone who doesn't care one way or the other you're being a just a little insulting. > It doesn’t lend it any credence. NLP doesn't need "credence". It works. Believe or not, it's no skin off my teeth. Here's the thing: I pretend to be a crass cranky curmudgeon but I'm actually a bleedin' heart soft-touch kind of a fellow. I care about my fellow humans beings and I wish them well, more-or-less. I know NLP works, because I've worked with it myself, and because I was cured of serious clinical depression by Richard Bandler himself. This stuff really is a turning point in human history. So, on the one hand, I got my cure and went on with a new normal life, so it doesn't matter to me personally what you or anybody in particular thinks of NLP. On the other hand, what kind of monster would I be if I kept my mouth shut when some ignorant person calls it "pseudoscience" and warns people away from it? To me it's like I'm one of the first people to hear about and benefit from penicillin, yeah? And some dude is like "penicillin is generally considered a pseudoscience". I'm going to speak up, ya feel me? There's a feeling of obligation, to truth and to the other people out there who are suffering like I was, and who may well find relief in this new not-yet-science of human psychology. > Why would the “evil scientists” be so against your ideology, specifically? I never said "evil scientists", and NLP is not an ideology. (Nor a cult for that matter.) As for why NLP is shunned by researchers, who have a hard time replicating even the simplest discoveries, even though normal everyday people learn and use this stuff successfully every day all over the world, like I said, it's strange. I have no answer for you. The obvious answer: "NLP is BS", is a non-starter for the reasons outlined above. (To reiterate: it does work.) In any event, although it's a puzzle, it's not my problem. My depression was cured. In sum, check out NLP. Or not, what do I care? (But really, do. It's the real deal.)
      - dang 4y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack or name-calling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      > pre-scientific What does that mean?
      - carapace 4y ago
        The NLP people have developed a body of models and techniques for rapid and durable psychological changes. This body of work is systematic and repeatable, but the NLP folks haven't (yet!) "done science to it" to try to figure out why these techniques work.
      - icepat 4y ago
        Nothing. Either something follows the scientific method, or it does not. Pre-scientific is a fancy way of saying "we have no evidence for this". Bear in mind, this field is decades old, and has been subjected already to scientific study. All of which have debunked it. In the typical style of SCAMS (supplemental, complementary, and alternative medicines), this line really just means they're waiting for the one study to validate them in the face of countless studies that have not.
        carapace 4y ago
        You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you?
        icepat 4y ago
        No, but I'm trained as a scientist, so I know how to read research, data, and scientific studies. I don't need to have experience with Scientology to tell you that, based on the available evidence, it's bunk. Nor do I need experience with homeopathy to tell you that water-memory is unscientific and nonsense. Direct, personal experience, isn't how the scientific community collects data, and converts that data into knowledge. It's rigorous study, and testing. NLP has been subjected to that, and it has failed to stand up.
        carapace 4y ago
        >> You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you? > No Thank you. That's really the best I can hope for in conversations about NLP with skeptical people. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. But I appreciate your honesty in admitting you do not have first hand experience with NLP. I am not a scientist myself, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an "amateur scientist". However, I am very very pro-science. I consider science to be one of the most important human activities. I also value skepticism. (E.g. IMO James Randi is a hero in the intellectual life of humanity.) However, that said, this is an area where science is out of the loop. This stuff works. It's rigorous and repeatable. It's not even hard to do. > NLP has been subjected to [rigorous study, and testing], and it has failed to stand up. That can't be true. I don't know what the boffins did, but if they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish.
    - icepat 4y ago
      > learning and using this stuff every day Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, it's anecdote. You're basing this all off what people are saying works for them. There's a strong possibility that having learned this gives them extra confidence/trying harder, which in tern leads them to improvements. It's like taking sugar pills telling someone it's amphetamine.
      - carapace 4y ago
        I wasn't cured of clinical depression by "extra confidence" or "trying harder".
        icepat 4y ago
        This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches, to an illness that leads almost a million people a year to take their own lives, is reckless and potentially harmful. You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool. Some people believe taking LSD worked for them -- cool. Some people say L. Ron Hubbard's "technology" has helped them. I won't take that away from them, but if they start pushing it on other, that's deeply wrong. There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals. But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work. I won't take the fact that you found something helpful in this. People find all sorts of different things helpful. But I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous.
        carapace 4y ago
        > This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. I went to a one of the greatest hypnotherapists in the world for help with depression, he put me in a trance and did something, and when I came out of the trance my depression was gone. Dismissing that as mere "correlation" seems illogical to me. In re: "unsubstantiated anecdotal claim" well, you got me there. I'm just some rando on the internet, eh? Nevertheless, it's true. (I've detailed the experience before on HN, use algolia if you're curious, eh?) > Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches, Ah, but I am the living proof. My life is the evidence. This is primary data. > [Suggesting NLP] is reckless and potentially harmful. I don't see that at all. In fact, to me this situations seems exactly the opposite. This NLP is a profound breakthrough in human psychology. I feel you're being "potentially harmful" to call it pseudoscience and warn people away from it. I don't doubt that your motives are good and that you're sincere, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history on this one. NLP will eventually have a scientific grounding, perhaps after today's scientific community ages out, but it's inevitable. (As an aside, when you say it's "reckless" to talk about how NLP cured my depression, what exactly are you getting at? It's not like NLP is a drug with dangerous side effects, eh? It's just talking, after all.) > You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool. No dude, not cool. I want to know what happened to me. I want us to "do science" to NLP! I want to know how and why it works. This "science has debunked NLP" line of nonsense is not helpful. > There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals. For depression? Really? That's terrific! Still doesn't change the fact that NLP works. Again, like I said, if scientists can't figure out how and why the models and techniques of NLP work that just makes them look incompetent. > But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work. Well, at risk of sounding snarky, I must say it's a good thing you aren't the one who gets to decide whether I can recommend NLP to people or not! > I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous. I apologize for that. NLP is not a panacea. There is a wide variance in NLP therapists, and results. It's not a "sure thing". (That said, for e.g. phobias there is a concrete repeatable algorithm that alleviates them, and my understandingh is that it's pretty much 100% effecitive.) - - - - I tell you what, it really is puzzling to me why academics have a hard time with NLP. You sound like you have read some of these scientific papers that supposedly "debunk" NLP. If you'll cite some I'll look them over and see if I can detect how or why they failed. I mean, I'm not an expert in NLP nor psychology, but perhaps we can salvage something constructive out of this exchange? - - - - edit: I saw when I posted this comment that you have replied to the other sub-thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 ) meanwhile. I've got to do some other things for a bit but I'll reply in a few hours. In any event, well met! :)

It’s old and perhaps a little controversial, but “ NLP: The New Technology of Achievement” has good examples and abstractions that could help you with #1

icepat 4y ago
Controversial in that it's generally considered a pseudoscience. I'd advise against anyone looking to figure out how to navigate this wasting their time with pseudosciences.
- carapace 4y ago
  > it's generally considered a pseudoscience. Only by people who have no experience with it. NLP ("Neurolinguistic Programming", not Natural Language Processing) is pre-scientific, yes, but that's not the same as being a pseudoscience, and calling it such is a disservice. We have pretty much discovered the operating system of the human mind. applying the principles and techniques discovered and systematized under the rubric of NLP one can do amazing things. - - - - It is strange that academic research psychologists seem to have trouble with it. But that's their problem, it doesn't change the fact that people all over the world are learning and using this stuff every day. If academic psychologists can't understand it that just makes them irrelevant, it doesn't change the facts.
  - brokensegue 4y ago
    Plenty of people all over the world are learning and using the teachings of Scientology. That doesn't make them right or even useful
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I don’t really care about this one or the other but you’re taking about this thing exactly the way cultists do. It doesn’t lend it any credence. Why would the “evil scientists” be so against your ideology, specifically? Academics publish papers on all kinds of things. This is the same type of stuff of Gene Ray or flat-Earthers etc.
    - carapace 4y ago
      For someone who doesn't care one way or the other you're being a just a little insulting. > It doesn’t lend it any credence. NLP doesn't need "credence". It works. Believe or not, it's no skin off my teeth. Here's the thing: I pretend to be a crass cranky curmudgeon but I'm actually a bleedin' heart soft-touch kind of a fellow. I care about my fellow humans beings and I wish them well, more-or-less. I know NLP works, because I've worked with it myself, and because I was cured of serious clinical depression by Richard Bandler himself. This stuff really is a turning point in human history. So, on the one hand, I got my cure and went on with a new normal life, so it doesn't matter to me personally what you or anybody in particular thinks of NLP. On the other hand, what kind of monster would I be if I kept my mouth shut when some ignorant person calls it "pseudoscience" and warns people away from it? To me it's like I'm one of the first people to hear about and benefit from penicillin, yeah? And some dude is like "penicillin is generally considered a pseudoscience". I'm going to speak up, ya feel me? There's a feeling of obligation, to truth and to the other people out there who are suffering like I was, and who may well find relief in this new not-yet-science of human psychology. > Why would the “evil scientists” be so against your ideology, specifically? I never said "evil scientists", and NLP is not an ideology. (Nor a cult for that matter.) As for why NLP is shunned by researchers, who have a hard time replicating even the simplest discoveries, even though normal everyday people learn and use this stuff successfully every day all over the world, like I said, it's strange. I have no answer for you. The obvious answer: "NLP is BS", is a non-starter for the reasons outlined above. (To reiterate: it does work.) In any event, although it's a puzzle, it's not my problem. My depression was cured. In sum, check out NLP. Or not, what do I care? (But really, do. It's the real deal.)
    - dang 4y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack or name-calling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    > pre-scientific What does that mean?
    - carapace 4y ago
      The NLP people have developed a body of models and techniques for rapid and durable psychological changes. This body of work is systematic and repeatable, but the NLP folks haven't (yet!) "done science to it" to try to figure out why these techniques work.
    - icepat 4y ago
      Nothing. Either something follows the scientific method, or it does not. Pre-scientific is a fancy way of saying "we have no evidence for this". Bear in mind, this field is decades old, and has been subjected already to scientific study. All of which have debunked it. In the typical style of SCAMS (supplemental, complementary, and alternative medicines), this line really just means they're waiting for the one study to validate them in the face of countless studies that have not.
      - carapace 4y ago
        You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you?
        icepat 4y ago
        No, but I'm trained as a scientist, so I know how to read research, data, and scientific studies. I don't need to have experience with Scientology to tell you that, based on the available evidence, it's bunk. Nor do I need experience with homeopathy to tell you that water-memory is unscientific and nonsense. Direct, personal experience, isn't how the scientific community collects data, and converts that data into knowledge. It's rigorous study, and testing. NLP has been subjected to that, and it has failed to stand up.
        carapace 4y ago
        >> You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you? > No Thank you. That's really the best I can hope for in conversations about NLP with skeptical people. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. But I appreciate your honesty in admitting you do not have first hand experience with NLP. I am not a scientist myself, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an "amateur scientist". However, I am very very pro-science. I consider science to be one of the most important human activities. I also value skepticism. (E.g. IMO James Randi is a hero in the intellectual life of humanity.) However, that said, this is an area where science is out of the loop. This stuff works. It's rigorous and repeatable. It's not even hard to do. > NLP has been subjected to [rigorous study, and testing], and it has failed to stand up. That can't be true. I don't know what the boffins did, but if they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish.
  - icepat 4y ago
    > learning and using this stuff every day Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, it's anecdote. You're basing this all off what people are saying works for them. There's a strong possibility that having learned this gives them extra confidence/trying harder, which in tern leads them to improvements. It's like taking sugar pills telling someone it's amphetamine.
    - carapace 4y ago
      I wasn't cured of clinical depression by "extra confidence" or "trying harder".
      - icepat 4y ago
        This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches, to an illness that leads almost a million people a year to take their own lives, is reckless and potentially harmful. You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool. Some people believe taking LSD worked for them -- cool. Some people say L. Ron Hubbard's "technology" has helped them. I won't take that away from them, but if they start pushing it on other, that's deeply wrong. There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals. But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work. I won't take the fact that you found something helpful in this. People find all sorts of different things helpful. But I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous.
        carapace 4y ago
        > This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. I went to a one of the greatest hypnotherapists in the world for help with depression, he put me in a trance and did something, and when I came out of the trance my depression was gone. Dismissing that as mere "correlation" seems illogical to me. In re: "unsubstantiated anecdotal claim" well, you got me there. I'm just some rando on the internet, eh? Nevertheless, it's true. (I've detailed the experience before on HN, use algolia if you're curious, eh?) > Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches, Ah, but I am the living proof. My life is the evidence. This is primary data. > [Suggesting NLP] is reckless and potentially harmful. I don't see that at all. In fact, to me this situations seems exactly the opposite. This NLP is a profound breakthrough in human psychology. I feel you're being "potentially harmful" to call it pseudoscience and warn people away from it. I don't doubt that your motives are good and that you're sincere, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history on this one. NLP will eventually have a scientific grounding, perhaps after today's scientific community ages out, but it's inevitable. (As an aside, when you say it's "reckless" to talk about how NLP cured my depression, what exactly are you getting at? It's not like NLP is a drug with dangerous side effects, eh? It's just talking, after all.) > You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool. No dude, not cool. I want to know what happened to me. I want us to "do science" to NLP! I want to know how and why it works. This "science has debunked NLP" line of nonsense is not helpful. > There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals. For depression? Really? That's terrific! Still doesn't change the fact that NLP works. Again, like I said, if scientists can't figure out how and why the models and techniques of NLP work that just makes them look incompetent. > But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work. Well, at risk of sounding snarky, I must say it's a good thing you aren't the one who gets to decide whether I can recommend NLP to people or not! > I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous. I apologize for that. NLP is not a panacea. There is a wide variance in NLP therapists, and results. It's not a "sure thing". (That said, for e.g. phobias there is a concrete repeatable algorithm that alleviates them, and my understandingh is that it's pretty much 100% effecitive.) - - - - I tell you what, it really is puzzling to me why academics have a hard time with NLP. You sound like you have read some of these scientific papers that supposedly "debunk" NLP. If you'll cite some I'll look them over and see if I can detect how or why they failed. I mean, I'm not an expert in NLP nor psychology, but perhaps we can salvage something constructive out of this exchange? - - - - edit: I saw when I posted this comment that you have replied to the other sub-thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 ) meanwhile. I've got to do some other things for a bit but I'll reply in a few hours. In any event, well met! :)