(I’m going to break protocol in order to place a data point.)
PJEby, I can’t improve my understanding of things by reading your writings. You assert much without connecting with other people’s constructions, and performing translation is difficult. This creates additional annoyance for me, because it’s difficult to respond either, more so to dispute. And the more you write, the harder it becomes.
I can’t give feedback through rating either, because I don’t see your writing rewarding enough to try to understand what you say in your own language, and not understanding what you wrote makes it hard to decide whether a particular comment of yours was valuable.
I offer another data point. Right now I’m struggling mightily with procrastination, and pjeby’s post of 26 April 2009 04:38:27PM is perfectly comprehensible to me because it closely mirrors my internal experience of the difference between preference and motivation. I’ve also had the experience of believing that my preference should motivate me, and creating elaborate explanations for why it doesn’t.
I wonder if you have to feel like your mind’s in dysfunction before the things pjeby writes seem plausible—that is, maybe the inferential distance is too far for a properly working mind.
Agree. The post about backing your advice with concrete experimental results was directed at PJ Eby to some extent, as well as the part about best finding true causal models by looking at what a majority of the scientists in a given field use. This is what makes PJ Eby’s advice less useful than what we’re accustomed to.
concrete experimental results … finding true causal models by looking at what a majority of the scientists in a given field use
Then the widespread use of NLP-based approaches in marketing and pickup—both fields that demand actual performance in motivating the behavior of strangers—should be suggestive of what sort of model you should be looking at when you want to study applied motivational psychology. It is definitely “less wrong” than the hideously naive theories of mind in use in current cog-psych literature, or for that matter, most pop-psych literature—they sadly reflect each other to a large extent.
Truly modern ideas in cog psych and neuro psych (like the “somatic marker hypothesis”) are only now (in the 21st century) catching up to things that were in NLP Volume I almost 30 years ago. See e.g.: this recent keynote cog psych paper compared to what the earliest NLP books have to say about the physiology of emotional states. Mainstream psychology has barely started to catch up, while NLP hasn’t stayed still.
Of course, depending on your definitions of “true” and “experimental”, you may have to wait another 30 years or so for mainstream psych research to catch up with models that actually work.
Does not count for as much as a formal experiment, and if a formal experiment done correctly and with good statistics fails to confirm the claim, it overrides all evidence from widespread use.
I’m inclined to take practice within marketing, and probably also within pick-up, fairly seriously (though, yes, less seriously than well-done sequences of formal experiments). These are communities that track results, care about results, and make some efforts at rationality and experiment.
Are there formal experiments that indicate the claims are false? What particular claims are in dispute?
Most of the “evidence” presented in favor of NLP is presented by people who have very strong financial incentives to get you to continue to buy their NLP stuff.
(I’m going to break protocol in order to place a data point.)
PJEby, I can’t improve my understanding of things by reading your writings. You assert much without connecting with other people’s constructions, and performing translation is difficult. This creates additional annoyance for me, because it’s difficult to respond either, more so to dispute. And the more you write, the harder it becomes.
I can’t give feedback through rating either, because I don’t see your writing rewarding enough to try to understand what you say in your own language, and not understanding what you wrote makes it hard to decide whether a particular comment of yours was valuable.
I offer another data point. Right now I’m struggling mightily with procrastination, and pjeby’s post of 26 April 2009 04:38:27PM is perfectly comprehensible to me because it closely mirrors my internal experience of the difference between preference and motivation. I’ve also had the experience of believing that my preference should motivate me, and creating elaborate explanations for why it doesn’t.
I wonder if you have to feel like your mind’s in dysfunction before the things pjeby writes seem plausible—that is, maybe the inferential distance is too far for a properly working mind.
Agree. And pjeby’s comments are long which makes it a little tedious for me to scroll past them.
Agree. The post about backing your advice with concrete experimental results was directed at PJ Eby to some extent, as well as the part about best finding true causal models by looking at what a majority of the scientists in a given field use. This is what makes PJ Eby’s advice less useful than what we’re accustomed to.
Then the widespread use of NLP-based approaches in marketing and pickup—both fields that demand actual performance in motivating the behavior of strangers—should be suggestive of what sort of model you should be looking at when you want to study applied motivational psychology. It is definitely “less wrong” than the hideously naive theories of mind in use in current cog-psych literature, or for that matter, most pop-psych literature—they sadly reflect each other to a large extent.
Truly modern ideas in cog psych and neuro psych (like the “somatic marker hypothesis”) are only now (in the 21st century) catching up to things that were in NLP Volume I almost 30 years ago. See e.g.: this recent keynote cog psych paper compared to what the earliest NLP books have to say about the physiology of emotional states. Mainstream psychology has barely started to catch up, while NLP hasn’t stayed still.
Of course, depending on your definitions of “true” and “experimental”, you may have to wait another 30 years or so for mainstream psych research to catch up with models that actually work.
Does not count for as much as a formal experiment, and if a formal experiment done correctly and with good statistics fails to confirm the claim, it overrides all evidence from widespread use.
I’m inclined to take practice within marketing, and probably also within pick-up, fairly seriously (though, yes, less seriously than well-done sequences of formal experiments). These are communities that track results, care about results, and make some efforts at rationality and experiment.
Are there formal experiments that indicate the claims are false? What particular claims are in dispute?
Most of the “evidence” presented in favor of NLP is presented by people who have very strong financial incentives to get you to continue to buy their NLP stuff.