Quote:

>>>[Hermit] Jonathan Davis, I read the "Crash Course" article. It described the same NLP as I remembered - full of assertion, generality and platitudes - and when apparently concrete assertions are made, they are wrong. For example, how many instruments can you hear at once during a symphony? If only "7 +/- 2 bits" why do we have 100+ players in a full orchestra? How many are you conscious of? When you're hearing the orchestra, are you aware of the drum in the back beating at the same time as you are aware of the strings sectoin and the chellos? What is a chunk also? A strategy. A TOTE. A proceedure for how the mind sequences decisions.  A chunk is a collective unit of sequences of activities. A chain reaction or thought complex that is neurologically associated with that complex, perhaps. I don't know- just guessing. Riding a bike involves processes of a few 'chunks'. When you're learning, you have to be aware of all the little things like where to petal, how hard, how to maintain balance, how to look in front of you to see where you're going. When you first learned, you probably had your dad hold on so you didn't have to worry about balancing or steering- you could just focus on pedaling. Then you chunk up. I don't know what a chunk is, specifically, but i don't think people know how language "works" either. >>>As far as the claims made here and referenced in the above paper (and notice that these are simple quantified tests, not waffly descriptions): Predicates Some 32 research studies looked at the validity of predicates; 21 of these studies (66 per cent) found that the use of predicates had little to no influence in building or enhancing rapport. Who is doing the rapport-ing? >>>Representational systems Some 36 research studies looked at the concept of representational systems; 29 of these studies (81%) found no bona fide evidence to support the use of representational systems and concluded that they did not appear to play any significant role in communication. How can 81% of studiers find one thing and 19 percent find something else? What is this, majority wins? What kind of communication, in particular? Who's role is being played? Communication for... what specifically? There is a deletion... something is missing... >>>Eye-accessing cues Linked to representational systems is the NLP concept of eye-accessing cues. Here it is conjectured that the movement of the eyes can indicate any number of things. It is stated that these eye-accessing movements do not always follow this pattern and that NLP practioners have to calibrate each individual they work with to be sure of their conclusions. Some 35 research groups have investigated this theory and when the findings are analysed the following results emerge. Bandler, et all, agrees eye accessing cues are generalisations. He uses them for training us. For what, specifically? Well, one thing he values as a behavior is keeping one's sensory fields ( i don't know the lingo) open. Keep your senses open when working with clients (or communicating to outcome, or whatever). I guess it depends on the interaction and the exchange in communication. If you're going to get into the other persons model or map of the world, you have to be aware of that person, it seems to me, and to be aware, you have to have to be most conscious of your sensations, your perceptions. These eye accessing cues are generalisations and good for training one to listen effectively. Huxley wrote a book i'm on right now called "the art of seeing" >>>Only eight of these studies (23%) supported the use and legitimacy of eye accessing cues. The rest 27 (77 per cent) stated that eye-accessing cues appeared to have no significant positive or negative impact when utilised in personal interactions. Positive impact FOR WHAT? Again, there is another deletion. If someone is going nowhere, then that's exactly what they'll find. Maybe this is a wrap up of the study and you can fill in the blanks. Phobia cures Phobia cures, often using NLP 'patterns', to change and alter an individual's personal construct concerning the obsession or fear produce better results, though not overwhelming support. A pattern is a sequence of interactions between one person and another, which can allow them to perceive or reframe a situation with greater understanding or in a more positive and constructive way. Some nine research studies that have been undertaken on this issue are detailed and 56 per cent found positive evidence to support NLP's effectiveness. How can 56% find positive evidence and not the others? Who can we believe? "Greater understanding" and "positive evidence" are vague and unspecified terms. This, in some way, is a form of hypnosis, if you want to think of it that way. Bandler has a video series called "building and maintaining generalisations". Of course, the appropriate question to ask would be..."building and maintaining generalisations...FOR WHAT PURPOSE"? >>>A second article, referenced in the above, Dylan Morgan, "A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF NLP" notes (continuous excerpt): >>>A few years ago Dr. Heap, Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority and lecturer at Sheffield University, did a very careful and thorough study of all the research that has been done into certain claims of NLP, citing 70 papers in all. Specifically he was looking into the idea of the Primary Representational System (PRS), which is supposed by NLP to be a very important concept. It is claimed that people tend to think in a specific mode: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory or gustatory, of which the first three are the most common. NLP claims that it is possible to determine the PRS of a person by noticing certain words that she or he uses which will reveal the mode. It is also claimed that the direction of eye movement is an indicator of the PRS. This I find is interesting. I "suppose" at different "times" we think in different systems. I don't know for sure though. I guess it helps to pay attention and keep your awareness up. In "Struture of Magic Volume II" by Bandler and Grinder, which i haven't finished yet reading, the authors argue/claim that when people say "i see", for example, they are not speaking metaphorically, as most people assume/believe. They are speaking very literally, the authors claim, in that they see pictures of what the other person/people is/are saying in their mind- specifically, how they are representing the other persons (digital) language, a digital language (English) that allows us to (meta) map ANY and ALL our other maps (the ones from the five senses- V-Atonal-K-O-G) This, i guess, we'd have to test. Or the authors of the study already tested. >>>The reason why it is said to be important for the therapist to determine the PRS of a client is that it is supposed greatly to enhance rapport if one then matches the clients PRS. Who is doing the rapport-ing? When... is it right/useful to gain such rapport? When you're pacing as opposed to when you're leading them to more choice? Or when you're getting a sense of their model? I don't know. What can (such) rapport be used for??? >>>These three assertions are capable of being put to controlled tests to determine how far they are true. An assertion itself...but ok.... >>> Dr. Heap, who is also Secretary of the British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, ploughed through the literature to summarise the results of many workers and found the following. So he believes in "hypnosis" Cool. Do I? >>>Although the results have been mixed, the hypothesis that a person has a PRS which is observed in the choice of words has been found not to hold by the great majority of researchers. How did they find this? Maybe they're right. How can we know? >>>The hypothesis that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support. Sometimes it seems that when you are not at an advanced level of mastery of something...hypnosis or therapeutic changework, for example, focusing too much on the advanced/detailed material, in my opion, serves to be counter-productive. I find, it seems that there's always something more to be learned about the basics.... Then using the advanced techniques and materials (when i'm ready) is just a way to learn more about how the basics are applied, and when there are exceptions. I don't know. I'm not even a hypnotist or anything. I'm just a college student who took an nlp practitioner training and a wannabe pick up artist, who doesn't even use much nlp in his seduction, except as it relates to communication and outcome/goal getting/belief-behavior in general. >>>The third hypothesis which was looked at is the practical one of whether or not we can improve our relationship with a client by matching the presumed PRS. Again the answer is a resounding NO. There is no evidence that focusing on the presumed modality adds anything to the widely recognised finding that matching general characteristics of verbal and nonverbal communication may facilitate rapport. It is interesting that one researcher, Cody, found that therapists matching their clients' language were rated as less trustworthy and less effective! I think i've said pretty much everything on this topic, except, again, who's doing the matching? When are they doing it? How? Why and for what purpose? And are they congruent in all possible ways? >>>Dr. Heap comes to the following conclusion: 'The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. I find in my humble and lacking experience that most of the nlp books and writers suck. I generally prefer to stick to the original and in my opion best when it comes to nlp, namely bandler. And take lots of time mastering and learning the basics and then testing this in the real world. Just one person experiencing what he experiences through his senses and filters. Not like it's a scientific study or anything that great. And even when i read bandler, it's not the same as... or well, i'm more capable of getting more out of the bandler i read, i sincerely think, because i've met the fellow in person- i know what his language SOUNDS like and i know his style of communication in that way. As i think it helps meeting any person who's works or who's posts you have read or read. >>> These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye-movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions in everyday life. Again, i think it comes down to mastery, and having a firm grasp of the basics. Then it's not about right or wrong, but about training your intuitions. Training yourself in "the art of seeing and listening". That is in regart to eye movement patterns and predicate preferences. In regard to rep- systems in how the brain thinks, i don't know. Demonstratable for what? In what way are they demonstratable? >>> Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements. AT WHAT TIME may someone be in one (preferred?) mode, and at what times may someone be in a different mode? Can you imagine waterskiing right now? Or maybe you're more likely to hear the sound of the engine from the boat that's pulling you from wake to wake, feeling the weight of you as you glide along the water. I don't know. Wow, i'm getting good at this. Practice makes perfect. Now i'm a cocky sob. Can you imagine (though that's probably not the right word, etymologically) the smell of smoke as if from a fire from a burning bulding in the room next door? You, if like most people, i think, aren't generally aware, most consciously (and we could argue what consciousness is if you like) of the smells around you. But certain smells like smoke have been found (in studies i think... i can try look this up if you want me to) to trigger awareness. Smoke may signal danger. My point is that in different times, people are in different modes of representation. But at what times might they be in what? For a girl, making love might GENERALLY be a "Feeling" mode. Or it might be something else.  I don't know. And is there a sixth-sense? Language (audio digital as opposed to tonal, is like a whole different kind of map, a map of the five senses which are a map of the world of experience). >>> 'These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching, seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling." Ahh, so he's already capable of making "conclusions". Not saying he's wrong. Just that he's capable of concluding that the earth is indeed flat. Failure is a nominalisation. As if it's over and done with. >>>NLP practioners defending their art from these charges immediately retreat into anecdote, discussion of the unconscious and claims that the analysis is biased as it is evaluating specific effects rather than the "holistic field" - which is itself, as we see in the "Crash Course" defined in such vague, imprecise and unmeasurable terms as to largely defy analysis. And internet people generalise. "Holistic field" or outcome getting, of which one 'field' may be but a 'sub-field.' Who defines what a field is? Hell, we can even make the field of study smaller yet. Can't we? NLP Practitioners is also a nominalisation, as if they themselves don't/won't/can't change (ideas, beliefs, thoughts, etc). Did the crash course author want people to analyse his work? How do/would you know? How did/does he want people to analyse his work? How does it LARGELY defy analysis? Analysis for what? For it working? Working for what? Or analysis for it being "true"? How can something be true? Maybe people "are" biased... works for me sometimes :-) Maybe all people are biased all the time in some ways. Maybe the earth isn't the center of the universe. What makes something precise? Measureable by number or digitally? Why would you want to be precise? Most "Cold Readers" could do a much better job. Usually, as the many web forums, and even supposedly rigorous papers demonstrate, with classic "New-Agian" hysterical "positive feedback" smeared over the top. An example of such a putative defense may be found at [url=http://www.trainingjournal.co.uk/abstract/2001/020601.htm]Sue Knight, "NLP: Neuro Linguisting Programming or Never the Less Popular?", 2001-06]. >>>The trouble is the answer you did not give to my previous question. How do you measure claims such as those made in the "Crash Course" - or above defense? Comparison of the approach, data obtained from experiment and supported by analysis, seems more compelling to me than anecdote and positive assertion. Ahh, data! Is that what you are looking for? Consider the data of the people RB has helped. Consider the fact that corporations keep hiring these people to help them (if they do), and maybe corporations are careful about the money they spend. Data, huh? I find data to be an exercise in boredom sometimes, but a necessesity, generally, as well. Usually other people do the data for me and give me the results i want to know about. But how can we collect data on these things--- and what things do we want to study- the rep system, predicate matching and eye accessing?--- and are we to make sure the therapist/communicator is congruent when we're surveying the participants as to his trust-worthiness? Why would we need to collect data? I guess we need people in society to keep things accurate and tight, and solid. (See, i just noticed there i'm talking literally, not metaphorically, in my mind, but that's anectodal. Well, it's a 1, at least, on a yes/no survey/questionarre). I'm not arguing that this would not be good. I'm just saying how would we do it? I think the mainstream psychology and (neuro?)science would/could have a lot to benefit from studying and teaming up with whatever nlp "is", though i think a lot of nlp branches into the study of the structure of subjective experience, which is 'hard' to be measured. I don't know. How can "we" get good tests going that ensure correct "results" and how can we tune our perceptual filers on in the right way to see the facts that stand out so we can say "EUREKA! I've got it" >>>By the way, it would be easy to devastate the "Crash Course", but as it has been done by others who were paid for their efforts, I seriously doubt the utility of doing so. The true believers won't bother reading it, and the more sensible don't need it.

I'm always testing things to see if they hold up, stand up. I guess it's possible the more 'enlightened' you become, the less you take for granted, the less you realise is absolutely certain. Read some Robert Anton Wilson. Read prometheus rising. Why did the cia hire psychics?

I guess all you can be is honest and open about things. I guess you can only do your best from where your coming from. Maybe you can do better than your best, but i don't know how. Though i don't know, i'd like to learn. 

jazzpua