You write:
"Until someone NeuroLinguisticly Programs me to believe otherwise, NLP is pseudoscience."
Which leads me to believe that you may have been misinformed about the nature of NLP.
Firstly, NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) consists of just one process - modeling. And a particular form of modeling at that.
Secondly, the idea that your father (or anyone else) could "NeuroLinguisticly Program" you to believe in NLP simply doesn't make sense. There is nothing to believe in - unless you want to question whether modeling is possible.
Thirdly. It may be that you are confusing NLP with the various "techniques and methods" which have been devised to carry out the modeling, or which have been arrived at by the use of NLP.
In that case I have to say that there are a pretty large number of the techniques around today, some of which are complete nonsense. But again this is not a question of belief.
Either a given technique works on a given occasion or it doesn't. From the earliest days of NLP the original co-developers of NLP made it quite clear that "nothing works every time for everyone regardless of the circumstances."
The most basic skills used by NLPers are:
1. Knowing which technique to used with a particular person or group in a given situation
2. The flexibilty to try something else if what you are doing isn't working, and to keep changing what you are doing until you find something that does work.
And lastly, NLP cannot be a "pseudo-science" (in the usual sense in which the term is used) for the reason I've just given.
Genuine "science" involves the use of the "scientific method," and the scientific method is based around validating hypotheses (or not) according to whether the results of experiments are replicatable and consistent. If NLP involves the understanding that the results of using any given technique may vary according to the subject, the user, the context, etc. then clearly NLP cannot be a science, nor even a pseudoscience.
Slashdot Mirror
Hatta
You write:
"Until someone NeuroLinguisticly Programs me to believe otherwise, NLP is pseudoscience."
Which leads me to believe that you may have been misinformed about the nature of NLP.
Firstly, NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) consists of just one process - modeling. And a particular form of modeling at that.
Secondly, the idea that your father (or anyone else) could "NeuroLinguisticly Program" you to believe in NLP simply doesn't make sense. There is nothing to believe in - unless you want to question whether modeling is possible.
Thirdly. It may be that you are confusing NLP with the various "techniques and methods" which have been devised to carry out the modeling, or which have been arrived at by the use of NLP.
In that case I have to say that there are a pretty large number of the techniques around today, some of which are complete nonsense. But again this is not a question of belief.
Either a given technique works on a given occasion or it doesn't. From the earliest days of NLP the original co-developers of NLP made it quite clear that "nothing works every time for everyone regardless of the circumstances."
The most basic skills used by NLPers are:
1. Knowing which technique to used with a particular person or group in a given situation
2. The flexibilty to try something else if what you are doing isn't working, and to keep changing what you are doing until you find something that does work.
And lastly, NLP cannot be a "pseudo-science" (in the usual sense in which the term is used) for the reason I've just given.
Genuine "science" involves the use of the "scientific method," and the scientific method is based around validating hypotheses (or not) according to whether the results of experiments are replicatable and consistent. If NLP involves the understanding that the results of using any given technique may vary according to the subject, the user, the context, etc. then clearly NLP cannot be a science, nor even a pseudoscience.
Hope this clarifies things for you.