How to move on?
Adam Sargant
or form.
NLP has been described as having a troubled adolescence. If NLP is to
survive, and mature, as a genuine field of study (by which I mean one
that contributes to the body of human knowledge and personal
development), what has to change?
Adam
Randall D. Kelton
It is my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is the addition of a
basic mental model of mind. All the psychologies I have read seem to start
from a basic set of presuppositions about the nature of the living mind, but
no one had ever went back to those basics.
I can do calculus but, I can only do calculus bacause I can do Trig, becasue
I can do Algebra, because I can do Math, becasue I can do 1+1=2. So, what
is the basic math of the living mind? What is the basic core beliefs on
which we have built all the highly sophisticate psychological methapors?
Has anyone tried to engineer a coherent and basic mental model of the mind?
I was just exchanging emails with Tom Vizzini and it became clear, we were
using the same words and appeared to be talking about the same thing, but
that was not the case at all. We were each working for a dramaticlly
different set of core beliefs and structures.
"Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104408289.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
(1) The claims made of the numerous NLP techniques should be subjected
to the scientific method. The faith component of NLP should be
discarded. To
be sure, this has started happening;
(2) False knowledge, i.e. those aspects of NLP that have been
repeatedly
tested and invalidated (eg. eye accessing cues) should be discarded;
(3) The cult and cult-like aspects of NLP should be eliminated. The
notion
that NLP belongs to one or two people should be laid to rest. The last
word on the validity of a matter should not be the putative authority
of
a person or a committee but rather the results of peer review of
empirical
research;
(4) The New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic offshoots from NLP should be
extirpated. NLP is properly a branch of cognitive psychology _not_
a secular religion. NLP -- like mainline psychology -- should be
concerned
with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified;
(5) The money-making charade of NLP certification should be abandoned.
NLP
certification is of dubious value. There is no central standard
setting
body, no quality control and in any event no-one outside of the
self-referential
NLP universe recognises or cares about Practitioner and Master
Practitioner
designations;
(6) Modelling exemplary behaviour should be raised in importance,
perhaps
to a central position. The exemplary behaviour should be empirically
measurable (at least partially) and not entirely subjective in nature.
This
serves to rule out the modelling of New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic
"skills" (which are generally subjective, untestable and
unfalsifiable). (
For exmple, I would like to see a model of Aron Ralston's
resiliency/survival beahviour.
This model would have application beyond outdoor survival training.)
(7) Notions of mystical modes of knowledge transfusion, eg. unconscious
installation of complex skills in trainings, should be discarded.
(8) A critical culture should be fostered, where dissent -- that isn't
based purely on assertion -- is encouraged. This is connected to (3);
(9) NLP should be informed by the many well-established results in
mainline psychology even if only to highlight any inconsistencies.
Peter Lee
"Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com>
Getting NLP studied as much as CBT may help.
However dont know those who study CBT do not want to study NLP though.
Peter
Joe Bloggs
"Peter Lee" <noe...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:cr10m2$qg...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>
> "Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com>
>
> Getting NLP studied as much as CBT may help.
>
> However dont know those who study CBT do not want to study NLP though.
Interesting. Why not?
Tom Vizzini
"Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104408289.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Good question Adam.
To this point I'm not sure NLP can actually survive. It is not that NLP has
had a troubled adolescence. It is that has been been taught by a troubled
adolescent. The Richard Bandler is the example of what is possible with NLP
then the world should run scared for its life.
This guy is no role model. It's not just that he is not perfect. He is
highly dysfunctional and delusional.
In the middle of a lawsuit he makes the claim that he does not want to sue
anybody when he is suing everybody.
The claims that he sent entities to influence the stock market
He has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse
He has been bankrupt several times
Exaggerated claims of power.
Constantly changing stories over time the bear no relation to what actually
happened.
This honestly sounds more like a client than a person who should be teaching
in NLP.
In order for NLP to be taken seriously the first thing you has to do is
distance itself from Richard Bandler.
No this does not mean that we expect whoever's teaching NLP to be perfect
person. No one is perfect. They should somewhat resemble a well
functioning human being.
The next thing to do is to do some good old-fashioned honest research.
Later this year we're going to be doing research on the 3-D Mind at Johns
Hopkins University research Center. We want to see how the different
processes change the map of the brain and brain accessing.
Those in NLP both accept research when it applies to helping NLP but reject
everything else that does not support the claims of NLP. That type of
reframing is borderline psychotic.
We should take the feedback and then change the process in order to improve
it. There have been little or no substantial improvements in the model of
NLP since the mid-seventies. The does become a static and stagnant process.
This is not to slam Bandler or NLP. Richard Bandler is simply not the type
of person that you want representing a reputable therapeutic technique.
John Grinder would honestly do a much better job. Robert Dilts is a shining
example of what is possible with NLP. There are many other good people as
well.
Add to this the eight or nine things that Myron mentioned.
NLP is like any other field. It's full of really good people wanting to do
really good things. It's also full of its fair share of psychopaths. My
first experience with NLP was with a certifiable psycho. Using People's
desperation to be cured he would sexually abuse them. In the meantime he
was taking painkillers like they were candy, chain-smoking and throwing
students through walls when they want to ask them questions. All while
claiming he was unconsciously installing everything he knew while twitching
like he was having an epileptic fit. For a short time I was stupid enough
to believe him. It was a very short time. It took a little longer to
unsnarl myself from the Web of deceit.
I also met some really wonderful people in this field. Robert Dilts is
amazing I rarely see someone worked with somebody and connects so fully with
them that the rest of the world completely disappears. Steve Andreas really
believes in what he's doing. In person he is a hell of a nice guy. John
and Kathleen LaValle are wonderful people. I have been lucky enough to meet
many great people in this field. All with wonderful intentions.
NLP shows some very high promise that is carrying around a lot of adolescent
baggage. If you insist on keeping the baggage then the reputation of NLP is
going to suffer. If you begin to praise the baggage as if it is flawless
than NLP will be discarded by most people as it has been.
To be honest my hopes that this will happen are beginning to diminish.
Slavish devotion seems to have replaced commonsense. It's actually quite
sad. There are so many good things in NLP. They just seem to be
overwhelmed. My hope is that they will not be lost. I'm not sure the
reputation of NLP is salvageable.
I have been looking into New Code in NLP that is being offered by Grinder.
I'm trying to discern exactly what is new.
I think I better question that how we move on would be how do you we
rebuild?
This is all just my point of view and should not be confused with any facts
whatsoever. If you want, you can disagree with my point of view but I doubt
that this point you will be able to change it.
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
>
>
>It is my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is the
addition of a
>basic mental model of mind.
It has one. The NLP model of the mind is an information processing
model.
Central to the model are the representational systems and their
submodalities.
If you think that NLP has no model of the mind then you know very
little -- if
anything -- about NLP.
>All the psychologies I have read seem to start
>from a basic set of presuppositions about the nature of the living
mind, but
>no one had ever went back to those basics.
There we go again with the "living mind". So by implication there
must
also be a "dead mind".
In NLP jargon a presupposition is distinct from an assumption. You use
the two terms
interchangeably as if they are synonyms. This has been explained to
you
numerous times by at least two people yet you continue to use this
sloppy language.
The NLP model of the mind is derived from a set of assumptions (else it
wouldn't exist).
>I can do calculus but, I can only do calculus bacause I can do Trig,
becasue
>I can do Algebra, because I can do Math, becasue I can do 1+1=2. So,
what
>is the basic math of the living mind?
The representational systems and their submodalities is this "basic
math".
>What is the basic core beliefs on
>which we have built all the highly sophisticate psychological
methapors?
I'm beginning to doubt that you've read any of the primary NLP texts,
i.e.
Structure of Magic I & II and "Frogs into Princes". I've already
attempted
to exlain the NLP information processing model of the mind to you.
I've
also attempted to explain to you the difference between a model and a
metaphor. I can't determine whether you're stupid, stubborn or both.
NLP has a model of the mind. Schematically, it is as follows
(hopefully
the "artwork" won't be messed up):
External Event --> Filters: -|
Meta-Programs |
Values |
Beliefs |--> Internal
Representation <--> State <--> Physiology
Decisions |
Memories/Time Line -|
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
Deletion Distortion Generalisation
Adapted from "Time Line Therapy and The Basis of Personality"
(By Tad James and Wyatt Woodsmall, 1988)
>Has anyone tried to engineer a coherent and basic mental model of the
mind?
Yes, see above.
Will you ignore this and "plough on" in ignorance as per form?
>I was just exchanging emails with Tom Vizzini and it became clear, we
were
>using the same words and appeared to be talking about the same thing,
but
>that was not the case at all. We were each working for a dramaticlly
>different set of core beliefs and structures.
Well for starters you don't seem to know the first thing about NLP and
you are
immersed in your own private language (eg. "living mind") so a dialogue
with
you is barely possible.
Further, Vizzini has posited his own model of the mind which I doubt
you know
anything about. (Incidentally, Tom, I am interested
in your model and would like to learn more. I wasn't impressed with
"Essential Skills" so I'm reluctant to purchase a new tape set. If I
can get a used
copy of 3D Mind on ebay I shall. Notice that I'm not pre-judging or
heedlessly
dismissing your product. You have revealed enough of your product to
suggest that
it is more than hot air, unlike Robert Swedishmeatball.)
John
wrote:
I don't accept your presuppositions.
--
John
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
External Event-->Filters-->Internal
Representation<-->State<-->Physiology
State-->Behaviour
Filters:=Meta-Programs,Values,Beliefs,Decisions,Memories/Time-Line
Effect of Filters:=Deletion, Distortion and Generalisation
Internal Representation:=VAKOG + submodalities
This is the NLP model of the mind.
Tom Vizzini
"John" <jg...@hotmill.con> wrote in message
news:6k58t0tt6lpj1cdfb...@4ax.com...
This is the response that has kept NLP from improving for years. Just stick
your head in the sand and it will all go away...right?
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
>
> --
> John
Adam Sargant
Adam Sargant
Adam Sargant
>(1) The claims made of the numerous NLP techniques should be subjected
>to the scientific method. The faith component of NLP should be
>discarded. To be sure, this has started happening;
Agreed. One of the things that attracts me to the field is that NLP
potentially offers a way of understanding subjective experience in a
way that a reductionist scientific approach does not. But it needs to
be underpinned by rigorous research and be open to critical analysis.
>(2) False knowledge, i.e. those aspects of NLP that have been
>repeatedly tested and invalidated (eg. eye accessing cues) should be
discarded;
I'm dubious about accessing cues, but I'm also dubious about the
quality of the research carried on them (at least, the research I have
read). The hypothesis that if you look up and to the right you are
accessing visual memory is demonstratably false and should be filed
under myths and legends, but that there is a relation between eye
direction and some mental activities seems potentially plausable and
could merit further research.
>(3) The cult and cult-like aspects of NLP should be eliminated. The
>notion that NLP belongs to one or two people should be laid to rest.
The last
>word on the validity of a matter should not be the putative authority
>of a person or a committee but rather the results of peer review of
>empirical research;
That, I suspect, will happen with time, if NLP remains a viable field
of endeavour. I agree it would be a positive outcome.
>(4) The New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic offshoots from NLP should
be
>extirpated. NLP is properly a branch of cognitive psychology _not_
>a secular religion. NLP -- like mainline psychology -- should be
>concerned with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified;
Are you suggesting that mystical and or transpersonal experience are
not amenable to research?
>(5) The money-making charade of NLP certification should be abandoned.
>NLP certification is of dubious value. There is no central standard
>setting body, no quality control and in any event no-one outside of
the
>self-referential NLP universe recognises or cares about Practitioner
and Master
>Practitioner designations;
I wonder if we are not just seeing an incredibly long "storming" stage
in the evolution of NLP. At some point, I would like to see NLP
embraced by mainstream psychology (I know several psychologists who do
have experience of it, but it comes back to the critical review point
you bring up)
>(6) Modelling exemplary behaviour should be raised in importance,
>perhaps to a central position. The exemplary behaviour should be
empirically
>measurable (at least partially) and not entirely subjective in nature.
>This serves to rule out the modelling of New
Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic
>"skills" (which are generally subjective, untestable and
>unfalsifiable).
Personally, I don't have a problem with modelling subjective "skills"
as you put it, but a way of putting the different aspects being
modelled into suitable contexts would seem to be a way forward.
>(For exmple, I would like to see a model of Aron Ralston's
>resiliency/survival beahviour.
>This model would have application beyond outdoor survival training.)
That would be very worthwhile.
>(7) Notions of mystical modes of knowledge transfusion, eg.
unconscious
>installation of complex skills in trainings, should be discarded.
Or detailed, explained and testable <g> and thus no longer "mystical"
>(8) A critical culture should be fostered, where dissent -- that isn't
>based purely on assertion -- is encouraged. This is connected to (3);
Agreed
>(9) NLP should be informed by the many well-established results in
>mainline psychology even if only to highlight any inconsistencies.
Indeed. If NLP was taken into the field of psychology, I believe it
would be a great leap forward for both fields.
Thank you for taking the time to offer a considered response
Adam
Adam Sargant
>However dont know those who study CBT do not want to study NLP though.
>
>Peter
Hi Peter
I start my psych degree with the OU next month. I look forward to
looking at NLP through the lens of psychology and vice versa:-)
Adam
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <jg...@hotmill.con> wrote in message
>news:6k58t0tt6lpj1cdfb...@4ax.com...
>> On 30 Dec 2004 04:04:49 -0800, "Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A question addressed to those who are engaged in NLP in any way, shape
>> >or form.
>> >
>> >NLP has been described as having a troubled adolescence. If NLP is to
>> >survive, and mature, as a genuine field of study (by which I mean one
>> >that contributes to the body of human knowledge and personal
>> >development), what has to change?
>>
>> I don't accept your presuppositions.
>
>This is the response that has kept NLP from improving for years. Just stick
>your head in the sand and it will all go away...right?
Wrong.
Just another assumption that it hasn't improved. This is just your
view which is well known here and doesn't need repeating endlessly. We
all know it by now.
So many posts here loaded with assumptions and presuppositions that go
unchallenged. And just like the trolls you attack first and ask
questions later.
There are many thousands using NLP successfully. They do not all come
to this forum. The volume of your attacks on NLP have no effect on the
improvements that are continually made by the people using it.
--
John
John
wrote:
>I don't have enough information to respond.
Presuppositions
1 NLP HAS A TROUBLED ADOLESSENCE
NLP is troubled ? It is designed to be self questioning and self
improving. Who says it is troubled? What trouble is it in? It would be
inaccurate to use the number abusive posts on this group as a criteria
for how troubled it may be.
What does adolescence mean in this context? When will its adolescence
be over? How will we know? What is the expected time for adolescence
to be complete?
2 IF NLP IS TO SURVIVE
On what basis is it assumed that its survival is in question?
3 WHAT HAS TO CHANGE
Who says it isn't changing already?
--
John
Adam Sargant
> On 30 Dec 2004 07:34:43 -0800, "Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't have enough information to respond.
>
> Presuppositions
>
> 1 NLP HAS A TROUBLED ADOLESSENCE
>
> NLP is troubled ? It is designed to be self questioning and self
> improving. Who says it is troubled? What trouble is it in? It would
be
> inaccurate to use the number abusive posts on this group as a
criteria
> for how troubled it may be.
Not necessarily my presupposition though<g> I'm just testing the waters
to see if I can move some of the discussion in a different (and for me,
more constructive) direction.
> What does adolescence mean in this context? When will its adolescence
> be over? How will we know? What is the expected time for adolescence
> to be complete?
I'm assuming that the original author of the statement (I cannot
remember who it was) was using it as a metaphor. Sometimes it is useful
to use language to provoke. It doesn't always have to be
meta-modelled:-)
> 2 IF NLP IS TO SURVIVE
>
> On what basis is it assumed that its survival is in question?
The rest of that statement was ",and mature, as a genuine field of
study (by which I mean one that contributes to the body of human
knowledge and personal development)"
>
> 3 WHAT HAS TO CHANGE
>
> Who says it isn't changing already?
It may be, but that is past and present. I'm interested in peoples'
views on the future.
Adam
John
wrote:
>>Getting NLP studied as much as CBT may help.
I did that a while ago. It's a great course and you will be light
years ahead of them.
--
John
DigitalDreamer
>
> On what basis is it assumed that its survival is in question?
>
> 3 WHAT HAS TO CHANGE
>
> Who says it isn't changing already?
Well, although both have vociferous detractors here, who may question
their motives in saying so, both Bandler and Grinder have recently
bemoaned the fact that nobody is pushing NLP forward. Doesn't this
suggest it isnt changing in a recognisable way?
>
Larry Synes
> Thanks for the response
>
> >(1) The claims made of the numerous NLP techniques should be subjected
> >to the scientific method. The faith component of NLP should be
> >discarded. To be sure, this has started happening;
>
Yes, scientific method: not 'scientific conclusion' by scientists with
preconceived views who have a case to prove.
So who's gonna do it?
> Agreed. One of the things that attracts me to the field is that NLP
> potentially offers a way of understanding subjective experience in a
> way that a reductionist scientific approach does not. But it needs to
> be underpinned by rigorous research and be open to critical analysis.
>
They ain't gonna do that since anyone dealing with NLP is seen as equivalemt
to somebody who vouches for the existence of flying saucers.
To me, that's a wonderful state of affairs as the idiots will leave it
alone.
> >(2) False knowledge, i.e. those aspects of NLP that have been
> >repeatedly tested and invalidated (eg. eye accessing cues) should be
> discarded;
>
> I'm dubious about accessing cues, but I'm also dubious about the
> quality of the research carried on them (at least, the research I have
> read). The hypothesis that if you look up and to the right you are
> accessing visual memory is demonstratably false and should be filed
> under myths and legends, but that there is a relation between eye
> direction and some mental activities seems potentially plausable and
> could merit further research.
>
One can certainly detect the onset/existence of innattentive
(internalised, selective, dissonant noise) internal dialogue by
eye fixation. One can also detect 'search' (more effective
inattention) by eye movement - but as for up and left, down
and right and such, well who knows.
You would have to develop a specific benchmark test
or tests such as to calibrate individuals...
[There, that could move it on a bit. <g>]
> >(3) The cult and cult-like aspects of NLP should be eliminated. The
> >notion that NLP belongs to one or two people should be laid to rest.
> The last
> >word on the validity of a matter should not be the putative authority
> >of a person or a committee but rather the results of peer review of
> >empirical research;
>
> That, I suspect, will happen with time, if NLP remains a viable field
> of endeavour. I agree it would be a positive outcome.
>
They'll just call it something else.
NLP to many means NIH (not invented here).
Expect to see sopme 'NLP' regurgitated in PhD theses
in new bottles.
> >(4) The New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic offshoots from NLP should
> be
> >extirpated. NLP is properly a branch of cognitive psychology _not_
> >a secular religion. NLP -- like mainline psychology -- should be
> >concerned with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified;
>
> Are you suggesting that mystical and or transpersonal experience are
> not amenable to research?
>
Quite agree.
The supposed 'mystical' etc perspectives are at the core of 'NLP'
in that they refer to subjective behaviours.
Have a look at some more Erickson, Rossi, Varela Bateson, Lakoff, Whorf
et al. Without knowledge of 'NLP' you would take what some of these
people do to be some kind of magic if you didn't know better.
> >(5) The money-making charade of NLP certification should be abandoned.
> >NLP certification is of dubious value. There is no central standard
> >setting body, no quality control and in any event no-one outside of
> the
> >self-referential NLP universe recognises or cares about Practitioner
> and Master
> >Practitioner designations;
>
> I wonder if we are not just seeing an incredibly long "storming" stage
> in the evolution of NLP. At some point, I would like to see NLP
> embraced by mainstream psychology (I know several psychologists who do
> have experience of it, but it comes back to the critical review point
> you bring up)
>
He's right on that.
Nobody denies the researchers rewards for
their work - but the certification
bit does seem overplayed.
> >(6) Modelling exemplary behaviour should be raised in importance,
> >perhaps to a central position. The exemplary behaviour should be
> empirically
> >measurable (at least partially) and not entirely subjective in nature.
> >This serves to rule out the modelling of New
> Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic
> >"skills" (which are generally subjective, untestable and
> >unfalsifiable).
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with modelling subjective "skills"
> as you put it, but a way of putting the different aspects being
> modelled into suitable contexts would seem to be a way forward.
>
Depends what you call 'exemplary' and who and why one takes for examples.
Maybe walking on water is an advanced NLP technique... and excluding
'mysticism' and allied behaviours presupposes they have no meaning
when to a number of people they certainly do and hence demand investigation
and not dismissal.
> >(For exmple, I would like to see a model of Aron Ralston's
> >resiliency/survival beahviour.
> >This model would have application beyond outdoor survival training.)
>
> That would be very worthwhile.
>
> >(7) Notions of mystical modes of knowledge transfusion, eg.
> unconscious
> >installation of complex skills in trainings, should be discarded.
>
> Or detailed, explained and testable <g> and thus no longer "mystical"
>
Correct.
Evidentially based - with physical evidence - and repeatable.
Now what were we saying about scientific method?
> >(8) A critical culture should be fostered, where dissent -- that isn't
> >based purely on assertion -- is encouraged. This is connected to (3);
>
> Agreed
> #
And where assertion isn't based upon dissent...
> >(9) NLP should be informed by the many well-established results in
> >mainline psychology even if only to highlight any inconsistencies.
>
> Indeed. If NLP was taken into the field of psychology, I believe it
> would be a great leap forward for both fields.
> Thank you for taking the time to offer a considered response
>
Oh do come on.
They won't risk their egos, reputations and bursaries to 'embrace' NLP.
As said, they'll steal your ideas, repackage them and make even bigger egos
reputations and bursaries in doing so.
I don't know why you bother looking for 'academic respectability' when
such is a contradiction in terms; what do you hope to gain?
I'd sooner be a 'wizard' than have academic respectabilty (at least you
don't have to wear stupid robes...) and don't forget there exists a
significant
religious tradition (=prejudice) in many areas of academia and that people
who might have the audacity to model the work of certain religious 'mystics'
might get a cold reception (eg 'healing by laying on of hands' as an NLP
technique... might be seen as heresy by some as could be 'speaking in
parables'.)
Here's an extract from one of my webpages that explains some of this &
the underlying thinking. It also re-emphasise the need for scientific
method,
but not necessarily for scientists:
"As examples of semiological (word-based) activities, the paradigms of both
science and belief systems have much in common in terms of language pattern,
but there exists a significant, irreconcilable break point between the two.
At root the former relies upon pragmatism (no matter how circumscribed this
may be), the latter upon subjective supposition, speculation and cultural
continuity.
The theories of science - insofar as they apply to the practical world -
relate to logical and coherent symbolic (linguistic) structures, means of
describing the fragments of world to which they refer supported by hard,
consistent and repeatable physical evidence, evidence, which although
ultimately circular in its linguistic definition, interfaces directly with
our objective physical world as observable cause and effect.
Our day to day existence, our sensory experience, arises in that very same
world of cause and effect. Such experience is hardly subject to the same
rigorous definition found in the specifics of 'science', yet despite this
our daily pragmatic and mundane behaviours mirror - indeed precede and
underlie - the scientific models.We need no knowledge of Newton's theories,
or even his or their existence, to understand the immediate effects of
gravity or force applied directly to mass.
In contrast to this, belief systems (religious, political, cult, business,
pseudo-scientific, management, etc.) essentially depend upon a form of
'faith' or indoctrination handed on by the repetition of the (symbolic)
pronouncements and 'revelations' provided by certain charismatic
individuals - often reinforced by ritual and fear to over enthusiastic,
gullible and/or dependent followers; in the particular case of minors, they
have no means of comparison, no means of resisting.
Evidence supporting such revelations is hearsay, unconvincing and
objectively non-repeatable, nevertheless the conditioned states of mind
brought about by such behaviours become realities - conditioned states that
those trance-fixed in them are often willing to die for.
This is not to say that 'science' possesses the only view of the world
(indeed in the 21st Century much of the scientific direction, investment and
hence perception derives from either direct or secondary selfish corporate
exploitation and commercialism - a matter which gets explored in depth in
these pages). Similarly, the comments of 'scientists', outside their own
particular areas of expertise, are rarely any more valid than those of
anyone else of reasonable intelligence and knowledge. Indeed, persons who
has immersed themselves in some obscure (and more often than not corporately
driven at some level) area of research for years may have extremely narrow
world views; they are no less immune to the 'belief' forms of conditioning
than anyone else - especially when reputations, bursaries and egos are at
stake. Speculation is speculation, no matter where, or from whom, it
originates; miners know less about the practical effects of sunlight than
farm labourers.
Neither is it to say that that the views of 'scientists' or any other
identifiable interest group who have common behaviour patterns are
necessarily invalid, just that we should doubt the speculations of anybody
irrespective of their self supposed authority. The scientific notion of 'big
bang' consmology is ultimately as much a fairy tale as the story in
Genesis - both viewpoints become pale, materialistic irrelevancies when one
begins to scratch beneath the surface of what we assume to know as
'consciousness' and begin to explore (say) the subtleties of paticca
samuppada.
If we see the dangers in irrationality, superstition, dogma, speculation and
the conditioning of pattern by fear, ignorance and rote - no matter who
would foist them upon us - we inevitably conclude we should perhaps use
coherent 'scientific' methods [not content, not theory, not conclusions nor
speculation, note, but METHODS] of experiment, measurement and repeatability
as the best available pragmatic basis of discovering and supporting our
conceptual (and hence linguistic) systems.
Ultimately all our experiences are subjective and conditioned - we merely
agree, and constrain, their objectivity by means of common metaphor and
symbol systems, which are a function of our consciousness (a circular yet
stable, individual yet collective, conditioned state).
When deep perception awakens and extends the use of concise symbology - and
uses it accurately, i.e. sparingly, without repetition and only as necessary
in interaction with the physical world - then the dross becomes increasingly
displaced, atrophied and falls away as lucid thinking takes its rightful
place as a companion of intelligence and not a barrier to it; 'remove the
obstacles and the fountain will flow'.
When we interact with the world, we do so through our senses - yet we very
rarely truly interact with the world. Our preoccupation with habitual, and
mainly irrelevant, thought processes initiated in childhood (and reinforced
collectively and reciprocally as a mass, ingrained habit of repetition and
trivia at almost every turn) - the incessant and infernal 'internal
dialogue' trance-fixes us in illusion, an illusion formed by our own
internal noise; becoming aware of this (largely unnecessary) illusion is the
process of us being born into reality.
The description, any description of anything, is symbolic and as such never
exists or existed as the described; we are indeed fools to engage with such,
other than by practical, physical need.
We encounter the real when we cease imaging and blurring 'what is' with
unnecessary symbol (coincidentally becoming free of psycholgical or
'effortful' desire that arises as a consequence of the noise); discarding
irrelevant logoage speeds the journey along that road.
Conception conditions perception..."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, sighhhhhhhhhhhhh, rant over <g>
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
>
>> >(1) The claims made of the numerous NLP techniques should be
subjected
>> >to the scientific method. The faith component of NLP should be
>> >discarded. To be sure, this has started happening;
>
>
>
>Yes, scientific method: not 'scientific conclusion' by scientists with
>preconceived views who have a case to prove.
>So who's gonna do it?
It seems you have a preconceived view about science.
If you read my other posts -- where I provide citations -- you will
learn that many aspects of NLP have been tested.
>> Agreed. One of the things that attracts me to the field is that NLP
>> potentially offers a way of understanding subjective experience in a
>> way that a reductionist scientific approach does not. But it needs
to
>> be underpinned by rigorous research and be open to critical
analysis.
>
>
>They ain't gonna do that since anyone dealing with NLP is seen as
equivalemt
>to somebody who vouches for the existence of flying saucers.
>To me, that's a wonderful state of affairs as the idiots will leave it
>alone.
You're starting to sound like an idiot. There are many research papers
on
NLP techniques, I've provided citations to many.
>> >(2) False knowledge, i.e. those aspects of NLP that have been
>> >repeatedly tested and invalidated (eg. eye accessing cues) should
be
>> discarded;
>
>> I'm dubious about accessing cues, but I'm also dubious about the
>> quality of the research carried on them (at least, the research I
have
>> read). The hypothesis that if you look up and to the right you are
>> accessing visual memory is demonstratably false and should be filed
>> under myths and legends, but that there is a relation between eye
>> direction and some mental activities seems potentially plausable and
>> could merit further research.
>
>
>
>One can certainly detect the onset/existence of innattentive
>(internalised, selective, dissonant noise) internal dialogue by
>eye fixation. One can also detect 'search' (more effective
>inattention) by eye movement - but as for up and left, down
>and right and such, well who knows.
My point -- and apparently Adam's -- is that this "well who knows"
mentality won't do.
>You would have to develop a specific benchmark test
>or tests such as to calibrate individuals...
Benchmark what? The NLP eye accessing cues hypotheses are
explicit, testable and falsfiable.
>[There, that could move it on a bit. <g>]
>
>> >(3) The cult and cult-like aspects of NLP should be eliminated. The
>> >notion that NLP belongs to one or two people should be laid to
rest.
>> The last
>> >word on the validity of a matter should not be the putative
authority
>> >of a person or a committee but rather the results of peer review of
>> >empirical research;
>
>> That, I suspect, will happen with time, if NLP remains a viable
field
>> of endeavour. I agree it would be a positive outcome.
>
>
>
>They'll just call it something else.
>NLP to many means NIH (not invented here).
>Expect to see sopme 'NLP' regurgitated in PhD theses
>in new bottles.
NLP itself is derivative -- as I've gone to great lengths to
demonstrate.
One example is that Bandler and Grinder took Pavlov's classical
conditioning
and relabelled it "anchoring". NLP borrows heavily from behaviorism.
Refer
to my other posts on the matter.
The inverse of what you are proposing has actually happened. Bandler
and Grinder
took much from Korzybski, Chomsky, Polya, Pavlov, Bateson, Erickson,
Watzlawick, James et al
and 'regurgitated' it in Structure of Magic I & II and 'Frogs into
Princes'.
That is to say, Bandler and Grinder took from mainline psychology,
philosophy,
lingusitics, general systems theory and computer science theory.
Also, NLP is the product of two academics. Bandler has an MA in
psychology and
Grinder has a PhD in linguistics. For these reasons your
characterisation
of NLP as deteached from the academy is incomprehensible.
"The Structure of Magic" is Bandler's rejected Master's thesis in
linguistics.
Dr Grinder's doctoral dissertation is on Chomskyian lingusitics. So
although
I wouldn't now characterise Bandler and Grinder as academics, they were
academics during th formative years of NLP. NLP is unequivocally the
product of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
>> >(4) The New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic offshoots from NLP
should
>> be
>> >extirpated. NLP is properly a branch of cognitive psychology _not_
>
>> >a secular religion. NLP -- like mainline psychology -- should be
>> >concerned with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified;
>
>> Are you suggesting that mystical and or transpersonal experience are
>> not amenable to research?
>
>
>
>Quite agree.
Whether they are or aren't amenable to research is a separate matter.
I'm
making a normative statement when I say they shouldn't be. The
research
of mystical and transpersonal experience rightly belongs to the field
of para-psychology.
>The supposed 'mystical' etc perspectives are at the core of 'NLP'
>in that they refer to subjective behaviours.
You are invalidly equating 'subjective' with 'mystical'.
>Have a look at some more Erickson, Rossi, Varela Bateson, Lakoff,
Whorf
>et al. Without knowledge of 'NLP' you would take what some of these
>people do to be some kind of magic if you didn't know better.
Nonsense. There is nothing magical or mysterious about NLP or
Ericksonian hypnosis.
>> >(5) The money-making charade of NLP certification should be
abandoned.
>> >NLP certification is of dubious value. There is no central standard
>> >setting body, no quality control and in any event no-one outside of
>> the
>> >self-referential NLP universe recognises or cares about
Practitioner
>> and Master
>> >Practitioner designations;
>
>> I wonder if we are not just seeing an incredibly long "storming"
stage
>> in the evolution of NLP. At some point, I would like to see NLP
>> embraced by mainstream psychology (I know several psychologists who
do
>> have experience of it, but it comes back to the critical review
point
>> you bring up)
>
>
>
>He's right on that.
>Nobody denies the researchers rewards for
>their work - but the certification
>bit does seem overplayed.
A "bit" overplayed. Prac, Master Prac and Trainer certifications are
the
NLP equivalent of the Scientology OT levels, or the Masonic grades.
They
are intra-group ranks that have no meaning, value or significance
outside
the group.
>> >(6) Modelling exemplary behaviour should be raised in importance,
>> >perhaps to a central position. The exemplary behaviour should be
>> empirically
>> >measurable (at least partially) and not entirely subjective in
nature.
>> >This serves to rule out the modelling of New
>> Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic
>> >"skills" (which are generally subjective, untestable and
>> >unfalsifiable).
>
>> Personally, I don't have a problem with modelling subjective
"skills"
>> as you put it, but a way of putting the different aspects being
>> modelled into suitable contexts would seem to be a way forward.
>
>
>
>Depends what you call 'exemplary' and who and why one takes for
examples.
Are you trying to be an idiot? 'Exemplary' behaviour is exceptional
behaviour that is worthy of imitation. Does this need further
comment?
>Maybe walking on water is an advanced NLP technique...
Maybe you're a cretin.
>and excluding
>'mysticism' and allied behaviours presupposes they have no meaning
>when to a number of people they certainly do and hence demand
investigation
>and not dismissal.
The paranormal has been researched _ad nauseum_. After 50 or so years
not one actual paranormal behavior (eg. telepathy, remote
viewing, telekinesis, mind-reading) or supernatural
event has been observed and reproduced under controlled conditions.
Randi's US$1 Million Paranormal Challenge remains. No one is yet to
claim the bounty.
In any event, this is the "remit" of para-psychology.
>> >(For exmple, I would like to see a model of Aron Ralston's
>> >resiliency/survival beahviour.
>> >This model would have application beyond outdoor survival
training.)
>
>> That would be very worthwhile.
No comment? Is self-amputation and the survival of an ordeal banal?
>> >(7) Notions of mystical modes of knowledge transfusion, eg.
>> unconscious
>> >installation of complex skills in trainings, should be discarded.
>
>
>> Or detailed, explained and testable <g> and thus no longer
"mystical"
>
>
>
>Correct.
>Evidentially based - with physical evidence - and repeatable.
>Now what were we saying about scientific method?
>
>
>> >(8) A critical culture should be fostered, where dissent -- that
isn't
>
>> >based purely on assertion -- is encouraged. This is connected to
(3);
>> Agreed
>> #
>
>
>
>And where assertion isn't based upon dissent...
That implies there is a place for assertion. Assertion is not
argument hence it has no place.
>> >(9) NLP should be informed by the many well-established results in
>> >mainline psychology even if only to highlight any inconsistencies.
>
>> Indeed. If NLP was taken into the field of psychology, I believe it
>> would be a great leap forward for both fields.
>> Thank you for taking the time to offer a considered response
>
>
>
>Oh do come on.
>They won't risk their egos, reputations and bursaries to 'embrace'
NLP.
>As said, they'll steal your ideas, repackage them and make even bigger
egos
>reputations and bursaries in doing so.
Now you've confirmed your idiocy. Cialdini is a social psychologist,
a mainline, conventional psychologist. Cialdini's work on persuasion
is seminal. I own two (ostensibly) NLP persuasion products that quote
Cialdini's principles of persuasion. So who is stealing from whom?
You're lost in your little NLP world where everything of value is
connected to NLP.
Are there bigger egos than Anthony Robbins and Richard Bandler? Where
are these egomaniacal academics?
>I don't know why you bother looking for 'academic respectability' when
>such is a contradiction in terms; what do you hope to gain?
If you pulled your head out of your cosy arse you'd realise that the
academy is the rootstock of progress and civilisation. You have
a clean water supply and sanitation because of civil engineering,
which is based on fundamental science. The human lifespan has been
extended because of academics like Howard Florey. We can get advanced
warning of Tsunamis thanks to our physicists, meteorologists,
climatologists,
and geologists. We don't have poliomyelitis outbreaks and we have
almost eliminated polio from the globe thanks to Salk and Sabin.
The computer that you are (ironically) using to disseminate your
anti-academic nonsense is the product of the work of academics.
>I'd sooner be a 'wizard' than have academic respectabilty
Academic respectability is the by-product of good work, it's not the
end in itself. One gains academic respectability by making novel
and significnt contributions to the stock of human knowledge.
Howard Florey had academic responsibility (see
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/florey/story.htm).
Would denigrate him and his contribution to the world?
>(at least you
>don't have to wear stupid robes...) and don't forget there exists a
>significant
>religious tradition (=prejudice) in many areas of academia and that
people
>who might have the audacity to model the work of certain religious
'mystics'
>might get a cold reception (eg 'healing by laying on of hands' as an
NLP
>technique... might be seen as heresy by some as could be 'speaking in
>parables'.)
You are a fuckwit aren't you?
>Here's an extract from one of my webpages that explains some of this &
>the underlying thinking. It also re-emphasise the need for scientific
>method,
>but not necessarily for scientists:
If your research and investigations are performed using the scientific
method then you are _ipso facto_ a "scientist".
>"As examples of semiological (word-based) activities,
Your use of the word 'semiological' in the first sentence signals that
there is a load of postmodernist drivel coming up.
>the paradigms of both
>science and belief systems have much in common in terms of language
pattern,
>but there exists a significant, irreconcilable break point between the
two.
>At root the former relies upon pragmatism (no matter how circumscribed
this
>may be), the latter upon subjective supposition, speculation and
cultural
>continuity.
>
>
>The theories of science - insofar as they apply to the practical world
-
>relate to logical and coherent symbolic (linguistic) structures, means
of
>describing the fragments of world to which they refer supported by
hard,
>consistent and repeatable physical evidence, evidence, which although
>ultimately circular in its linguistic definition,
In what sense is evidence "ultimately circular in its linguistic
definition"?
>interfaces directly with
>our objective physical world as observable cause and effect.
"[I]nterfaces". You are a pretentious wanker.
>Our day to day existence, our sensory experience, arises in that very
same
>world of cause and effect. Such experience is hardly subject to the
same
>rigorous definition found in the specifics of 'science', yet despite
this
>our daily pragmatic and mundane behaviours mirror - indeed precede and
>underlie - the scientific models.We need no knowledge of Newton's
theories,
>or even his or their existence, to understand the immediate effects of
>gravity or force applied directly to mass.
This is an asinine argument. It's akin to saying that our hearts would
still beat if cardiology didn't exist. No, Newton's Laws don't create
force but they do permit its quantification. Not all understandings
are equal: there is rough intuitive understanding ("the car will
crumple
if it hits the wall") and there is precise quantification ("F=ma").
The rigour that you are convniently ignoring is the difference between
pre-theoretical intuition and science.
>In contrast to this, belief systems (religious, political, cult,
business,
>pseudo-scientific, management, etc.) essentially depend upon a form of
>'faith' or indoctrination handed on by the repetition of the
(symbolic)
>pronouncements and 'revelations' provided by certain charismatic
>individuals - often reinforced by ritual and fear to over
enthusiastic,
>gullible and/or dependent followers; in the particular case of minors,
they
>have no means of comparison, no means of resisting.
This is factually incorrect. For example, people will join a political
party or vote one way or another for the purpose of value satisfaction.
If someone has arrived through reasoning that taxation is a form of
theft then that person would naturally align him/herself with a
political
group that advocates the elimination of taxation.
Your description of "belief systems" betrays your arrogance and
conceit.
You are implicitly stating that people believe things simply because
they
are told to do so. Presumably this does not apply to exalted beings
like you.
>Evidence supporting such revelations is hearsay, unconvincing and
>objectively non-repeatable, nevertheless the conditioned states of
mind
>brought about by such behaviours become realities - conditioned states
that
>those trance-fixed in them are often willing to die for.
You are making a category mistake. Political ideologies and most
religions (at least partially)
are concerned with value and morality, i.e. the good and the right.
Evidence
can't be adduced for values and moral principles. Consider secular
humanism. The core value is humanity above all else. Consider,
Millian Liberalism.
Untrammelled liberty -- consistent with the same for all -- is the
primary
value.
To a Christian, the New Testament contains reports of miraculous
events. These
reports demonstrate the divinity of Christ. In what sense is
repeatability
relevant. How is Christ's resureection supposed to be repeatable? By
what conceivable
means? Whether the reports are "hearsay" is a matter of historical
debate. You seem to be saying that all reportage is hearsay. Did you
personally
witness the landing of the First Fleet on Australian soil? No, you
rely on
accounts of this event. So to does the Christian in relation to the
miracles
that demonstrate the divinity of Christ.
You use the word "unconvincing". I ask, "unconvincing to whom?".
>This is not to say that 'science' possesses the only view of the world
>(indeed in the 21st Century much of the scientific direction,
investment and
>hence perception derives from either direct or secondary selfish
corporate
>exploitation and commercialism - a matter which gets explored in depth
in
>these pages).
So you purport to know the personal motivations of all science
students, post-graduates
and researchers? How did you arrive at this knowledge?
>Similarly, the comments of 'scientists', outside their own
>particular areas of expertise, are rarely any more valid than those of
>anyone else of reasonable intelligence and knowledge.
No-one's 'comments' -- unless they are based upon argumentation and/or
evidence
-- have value. A baseless opinion is a baseless opinion irrespective
of its
origin.
>Indeed, persons who
>has immersed themselves in some obscure (and more often than not
corporately
>driven at some level) area of research for years may have extremely
narrow
>world views;
They "may have" and by the same token they may not have. You don't
have
any evidence for this claim so rather than refrain from making it you
qualified
it with a "may". The moon may be made of green cheese.
>they are no less immune to the 'belief' forms of conditioning
>than anyone else - especially when reputations, bursaries and egos are
at
>stake.
So you're suggesting that an organic chemist that works for a paint
manufacturer
formulating UV resistant paints -- for example -- _may_ have an
"extremely
narrow world view" and may have become indoctrinated (with what you
don't say)
because
-- (s)he is highly specialised; and
-- (s)he works for a profit-driven organisation;
This is mere conjecture. Have you sought out any counter-examples to
your
brilliant insight. I know at least one highly-specialised scientist
that works for a very large corporate and he is neither indoctrinated
nor
has he a a narrow worldview.
> Speculation is speculation, no matter where, or from whom, it
>originates;
Yes, even when it comes from you.
>miners know less about the practical effects of sunlight than
>farm labourers.
So what? How does this support your "evil scientist" thesis?
>Neither is it to say that that the views of 'scientists' or any other
>identifiable interest group who have common behaviour patterns are
>necessarily invalid, just that we should doubt the speculations of
anybody
>irrespective of their self supposed authority.
You are engaged in an orgy of speculation, conhecture and assertion.
>The scientific notion of 'big
>bang' consmology is ultimately as much a fairy tale
This too is mere assertion. Can you substantiate your claim?
>as the story in
>Genesis - both viewpoints become pale, materialistic irrelevancies
when one
>begins to scratch beneath the surface of what we assume to know as
>'consciousness' and begin to explore (say) the subtleties of paticca
>samuppada.
Really? So in your presumably superior worldview the origin of the
Universe
is irrelevant?
Political ideological affiliation and religiosity (except Buddhism
presumably) is the result
of indoctrination but Buddhism is exceptional, Buddhists are instead
privy to The Truth.
>If we see the dangers in irrationality, superstition, dogma,
speculation and
>the conditioning of pattern by fear, ignorance and rote - no matter
who
>would foist them upon us -
Including you?
>we inevitably conclude we should perhaps use
>coherent 'scientific' methods [not content, not theory, not
conclusions nor
>speculation, note, but METHODS] of experiment, measurement and
repeatability
>as the best available pragmatic basis of discovering and supporting
our
>conceptual (and hence linguistic) systems.
So the entire body of physical and biological science is worthless
then?
Scientific "content" is the product of the application of the
scientific
method. If you reject the results of science i.e. theories, models,
conclusions, then you are compelled to also reject the method by which
those results were obtained, namely the scientific method.
You admit the value of the scientific method. The results in science
are the result of the application of that method. If the results are
worthless then so to must be the method employed to obtain the results.
Your position is inconsistent.
>Ultimately all our experiences are subjective and conditioned - we
merely
>agree, and constrain, their objectivity by means of common metaphor
and
>symbol systems, which are a function of our consciousness (a circular
yet
>stable, individual yet collective, conditioned state).
If you sincerely believe that then I invite you to leap from the 10th
floor
of a building.
>When deep perception awakens and extends the use of concise symbology
- and
>uses it accurately, i.e. sparingly, without repetition and only as
necessary
>in interaction with the physical world - then the dross becomes
increasingly
>displaced, atrophied and falls away as lucid thinking takes its
rightful
>place as a companion of intelligence and not a barrier to it; 'remove
the
>obstacles and the fountain will flow'.
Do you regard your thoughts as lucid?
>When we interact with the world, we do so through our senses - yet we
very
>rarely truly interact with the world. Our preoccupation with habitual,
and
>mainly irrelevant, thought processes initiated in childhood (and
reinforced
>collectively and reciprocally as a mass, ingrained habit of repetition
and
>trivia at almost every turn) - the incessant and infernal 'internal
>dialogue' trance-fixes us in illusion, an illusion formed by our own
>internal noise; becoming aware of this (largely unnecessary) illusion
is the
>process of us being born into reality.
Yes, of course, we all mindless drones and you'll teach us all how to
throw
off the shackles of habit, conditioning and collective delusion.
>The description, any description of anything, is symbolic and as such
never
>exists or existed as the described; we are indeed fools to engage with
such,
>other than by practical, physical need.
Do you masturbate when you write this shit?
>We encounter the real when we cease imaging and blurring 'what is'
with
>unnecessary symbol (coincidentally becoming free of psycholgical or
>'effortful' desire that arises as a consequence of the noise);
discarding
>irrelevant logoage speeds the journey along that road.
>Conception conditions perception..."
You are not unlike a 'loaded' toilet that has been clogged for days:
overflowing with
turgid excrement, threatening contamination and soilage, causing
disgust and alarm.
Joe Bloggs
AKA Larry Synes, who now uses nob...@home.com
as his email addy. Remember how he accused
the "anonymous" users of being trolls because they
wouldn't post with their real identity. Real clever to disappear for 6 weeks
Dave, then reappear as an anonymous idiot with the same argumentation style
and syntax. You fucken clueless and inflexible bastard holding onto outdated
and ill-informed viewpoints.
Go ahead you turd, tell us again how the Scientific Method is dependant on
the double blind, you clueless wonder.
<lronhubb...@fastmail.to> wrote in message
news:1104480273....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Adam Sargant
Larry Synes wrote:
> You would have to develop a specific benchmark test
> or tests such as to calibrate individuals...
> [There, that could move it on a bit. <g>]
The calibration issue is one of my criticisms of the research that I've
read, but I don't think that it is that difficult to devise a research
method that takes that into account.
> > >(3) The cult and cult-like aspects of NLP should be eliminated.
The
> > >notion that NLP belongs to one or two people should be laid to
rest.
> > The last
> > >word on the validity of a matter should not be the putative
authority
> > >of a person or a committee but rather the results of peer review
of
> > >empirical research;
> >
> > That, I suspect, will happen with time, if NLP remains a viable
field
> > of endeavour. I agree it would be a positive outcome.
> >
> They'll just call it something else.
> NLP to many means NIH (not invented here).
> Expect to see sopme 'NLP' regurgitated in PhD theses
> in new bottles.
Already happens. Sometimes by those with academic qualifications,
sometimes not.
>
> > >(4) The New Age/Mystical/Magickal/Shamanic offshoots from NLP
should
> > be
> > >extirpated. NLP is properly a branch of cognitive psychology _not_
> > >a secular religion. NLP -- like mainline psychology -- should be
> > >concerned with hypotheses that can be tested and falsified;
> >
> > Are you suggesting that mystical and or transpersonal experience
are
> > not amenable to research?
> >
> Quite agree.
> The supposed 'mystical' etc perspectives are at the core of 'NLP'
> in that they refer to subjective behaviours.
> Have a look at some more Erickson, Rossi, Varela Bateson, Lakoff,
Whorf
> et al. Without knowledge of 'NLP' you would take what some of these
> people do to be some kind of magic if you didn't know better.
I believe it was Arthur C Clarke who stated that any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
<snip>
> > Indeed. If NLP was taken into the field of psychology, I believe it
> > would be a great leap forward for both fields.
> > Thank you for taking the time to offer a considered response
> >
> Oh do come on.
> They won't risk their egos, reputations and bursaries to 'embrace'
NLP.
> As said, they'll steal your ideas, repackage them and make even
bigger egos
> reputations and bursaries in doing so.
As said, already happens. In all fields as it happens.
> I don't know why you bother looking for 'academic respectability'
when
> such is a contradiction in terms; what do you hope to gain?
I never said anything about academic respectability. What I would like
to see is some academic rigour. We have nothing to lose and everything
to gain.
Tom has mentioned using a PET scan to examine changes in brain activity
with respect to the 3D Mind approach. To me that is exciting. I recall
hearing on radio 4 recently that similar research is showing that CBT
effects lasting changes in brain activity with patients with psychosis.
I have a long standing belief that the submodalities are intrinsically
related to the neurological processes involved in perception (I had a
friend 2 decades ago at university who was modelling visual perceptions
on computer, and the model he was developing, with hindsight,
definately seems to have elements of what I now recognise as
submodalities). If I am right, and it can be proved and demonstrated,
the chances are we can refine the work we do with NLP significantly.
> I'd sooner be a 'wizard' than have academic respectabilty (at least
you
> don't have to wear stupid robes...)
And there is nothing to say you would have to give up your wizardry
<snip>
Adam
Adam Sargant
> John wrote:
> > On 30 Dec 2004 07:34:43 -0800, "Adam Sargant"
<adams...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't have enough information to respond.
> >
> > Presuppositions
> >
> > 1 NLP HAS A TROUBLED ADOLESSENCE
> >
> > NLP is troubled ? It is designed to be self questioning and self
> > improving. Who says it is troubled? What trouble is it in? It would
> be
> > inaccurate to use the number abusive posts on this group as a
> criteria
> > for how troubled it may be.
>
> Not necessarily my presupposition though<g> I'm just testing the
waters
> to see if I can move some of the discussion in a different (and for
me,
> more constructive) direction.
>
Just in addition. This is not the only forum with abusive posts. Visit
pretty much any other forum and you'll see the wranglings. The whole
thing in the UK with the ANLP finally acknowledging the SNLP after
years of refusal, then ANLP people splitting off to form their own
breakaway group. This splitting does concern me, because eventually we
are going to get to the point where what I learn as NLP is different to
what you've learned. To an extent that happens already. And if NLP is
different things to different people, with no grounds for consensus,
it's not NLP anymore. Its not anything identifyable of value.
And make no mistake. The UK government will get round to regulating
hypnotherapy, psychotherapy etc. I think we are going to have to grow
up (to perpetuate the metaphor) to survive that, at least with respect
to NLP as a distinct therapeutic modality.
Adam
"I am your king! And if you don't do what I say...I can't be your king
anymore"
Adam Sargant
> John wrote:
> > On 30 Dec 2004 07:34:43 -0800, "Adam Sargant"
<adams...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't have enough information to respond.
> >
> > Presuppositions
> >
> > 1 NLP HAS A TROUBLED ADOLESSENCE
> >
> > NLP is troubled ? It is designed to be self questioning and self
> > improving. Who says it is troubled? What trouble is it in? It would
> be
> > inaccurate to use the number abusive posts on this group as a
> criteria
> > for how troubled it may be.
>
> Not necessarily my presupposition though<g> I'm just testing the
waters
> to see if I can move some of the discussion in a different (and for
me,
> more constructive) direction.
>
Just in addition. This is not the only forum with abusive posts. Visit
pretty much any other forum and you'll see the wranglings. The whole
thing in the UK with the ANLP finally acknowledgining the SNLP, then
ANLP people splitting off to form their won breakaway group. This
splitting does concern me, because eventually we are going to get to
the point where what I learn as NLP is different to what you've
learned. To an extent that happens already. And if NLP is different
things to different people, with no grounds for consensus, it's not NLP
anymore. Its not anything identifyable of value.
Adam
Peter Lee
"Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com> ???
news:1104423423.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com ???...
That's good. Hope that you will be the Psychologist who proves that NLP
works as well as if not better than things like CBT.
Peter
Peter Lee
"Joe Bloggs" <no...@nowhere.com> 在郵件
> However dont know those who study CBT do not want to study NLP though.
>
>
> Interesting. Why not?
>
lot of people are willing to do it for CBT.
Peter
DigitalDreamer
>
> And make no mistake. The UK government will get round to regulating
> hypnotherapy, psychotherapy etc. I think we are going to have to grow
> up (to perpetuate the metaphor) to survive that, at least with respect
> to NLP as a distinct therapeutic modality.
Is NLP, of itself, a distinct therapeutic modality? In order to have
such a description, would it not require a common body of knowledge,
learned and practiced by all practitioners?
This then leads me to a fundamental question: if NLP is a distinct
therapeutic modality, what exactly do we mean by NLP?
Adam Sargant
OK, badly phrased. I apply NLP within the context of a therapeutic
modality.
Adam
Tom Vizzini
"John" <jg...@hotmill.con> wrote in message
> >
stick
> >your head in the sand and it will all go away...right?
>
> Wrong.
What specifically is wrong? Is it wrong with your sticking your head in the
sand? Is it wrong that you refused look at any flaw in the system?
>
> Just another assumption that it hasn't improved. This is just your
> view which is well known here and doesn't need repeating endlessly. We
> all know it by now.
It's not my assumption. It is my opinion. Those are two different things.
My opinion is based upon my experience. Assumptions are a guess.
>
> So many posts here loaded with assumptions and presuppositions that go
> unchallenged. And just like the trolls you attack first and ask
> questions later.
I did not attack anything. This is the typical response. If you don't like
the message attack the messenger.
>
> There are many thousands using NLP successfully. They do not all come
> to this forum. The volume of your attacks on NLP have no effect on the
> improvements that are continually made by the people using it.
I do not attack and NLP. I think it is a wonderful technology that has been
bogged down by snake oil.
I notice you do not challenge one single point that I make. Could it be
that there are no acceptable answers to my statements? Could it be that all
there is to offer our justifications for horrible behavior?
If you accurately be what I wrote you will see that it was all about what
could possibly improve the field of NLP. I also talked very glowingly about
several people in this field that I have personally met and gotten to know.
Your post is an excellent exercise in the observation of deletion.
Have fun
Tom
Adam Sargant
That would be kind of fun, but my primary aim is to see how a firm
grounding in psychology can enhance my own practice of NLP. And to see
just what can and cannot be validated.
Adam
Adam Sargant
Adam Sargant wrote:
> Tom has mentioned using a PET scan to examine changes in brain
activity
> with respect to the 3D Mind approach.
Correction: Tom didn't say that, he referred to doing some research. I
apologise for the error.
Adam
Peter Lee
"Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com> ???
news:1104501657.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com ???...
> >
>
> That would be kind of fun, but my primary aim is to see how a firm
> grounding in psychology can enhance my own practice of NLP. And to see
> just what can and cannot be validated.
>
> Adam
>
A good knowledge in Psychology should help a lot in counselling as you know
what's normal and what not normal.
Are there University courses in UK on Counselling? I am asking this because
the University Psychology courses in Hong Kong are packed with experimental
psychology stuff which not very useful. There are one or two Counselling
courses but they cover very little psychology stuff and that finding work
with such qualification can be difficult as most institutions in Hong Kong
would employ only Clinical Psychologists to do counselling and getting a
Clinical Psychologist qualification is something which sounds like
impossible. You have to do a first degree in psychology and you have to
have a first class honour in that, and that the Universities which train
Clinical Psychologists are very picky, and only very few (about 1 /10th) of
the first class honour students who studied Psychology as first degree get
selected.
Peter
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
great knowledge or insight into.
Joe Bloggs
<lronhubb...@fastmail.to> wrote in message
news:1104509806.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm happy to debate him on _any_ topic he cares to pretend to have
> great knowledge or insight into.
Indeed, and I'll be here to remind him that he claimed the
Scientific Method is dependant on the double blind. I'm waiting for him to
answer how this is so. He ran away quite quickly after that one. Maybe Day
Dreamer can help him out a bit?
John
wrote:
>John wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2004 07:34:43 -0800, "Adam Sargant" <adams...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't have enough information to respond.
>>
>> Presuppositions
>>
>> 1 NLP HAS A TROUBLED ADOLESSENCE
>>
>> NLP is troubled ? It is designed to be self questioning and self
>> improving. Who says it is troubled? What trouble is it in? It would
>be
>> inaccurate to use the number abusive posts on this group as a
>criteria
>> for how troubled it may be.
>
>Not necessarily my presupposition though<g> I'm just testing the waters
>to see if I can move some of the discussion in a different (and for me,
>more constructive) direction.
No problem, it was a good question and it's about time we had a decent
debate here. However, I still disagree with the presuppositions
whosever they are.
>> What does adolescence mean in this context? When will its adolescence
>> be over? How will we know? What is the expected time for adolescence
>> to be complete?
>
>I'm assuming that the original author of the statement (I cannot
>remember who it was) was using it as a metaphor. Sometimes it is useful
>to use language to provoke. It doesn't always have to be
>meta-modelled:-)
That was interesting. I hadn't realised these were meta modelled in
the reply until my son saw the original post afterwards and suggested
we run the MM over it.
The statements still hold however, meta model or not. Much as I love
analogies and stories I really don't see the 'adolescence' metaphor
adding any value here.
>> 2 IF NLP IS TO SURVIVE
>>
>> On what basis is it assumed that its survival is in question?
>
>The rest of that statement was ",and mature, as a genuine field of
>study (by which I mean one that contributes to the body of human
>knowledge and personal development)"
>
>>
>> 3 WHAT HAS TO CHANGE
>>
>> Who says it isn't changing already?
>
>It may be, but that is past and present. I'm interested in peoples'
>views on the future.
The point here is that NLP is not an object therefore it cannot be
flawed and it cannot 'be pushed forward' even if Bandler and Grinder
think it so. Without going into a thesis, it can be summed up as a set
of principles and skills that lead to practical and useful outcomes
any of which may be modified if they do not deliver the goods. Of
course there are many other definitions or summaries that are equally
useful. But NLP can only be real when people are doing it and then
they will be using various aspects that suit their particular need at
any given time.
I am sure that when some of the well knowns in NLP were strutting
their stuff they were working at a particular problem or issues, or
they had a need or desire to do something specific. I can't believe
anyone sat down and wrote a book or developed a technique in order to
'move NLP forward'.
It moves on its own by a thousand applications and a million uses. It
is only when we look back at what has happened that we use our models
and metaphors to give it some sort of meaning - for us, at a specific
time, the same way history is written & understood and then rewritten.
It does not then follow that we can then think of it as something
tangible that can be shaped moulded or changed through conscious
effort into some sort of outcome for the future. We can set our own
strategies and outcomes but not those of 'NLP'.
Now a story. Many commentators still stupidly ask batsmen what they do
when they plan to make a century. They smile benignly and politely say
that they never plan to make a century. Their goals are set for 2 or 3
overs or the next ten runs or to make it to Tea. If they are
successful at this then a century will eventually appear.
NLP will survive and flourish by people using it with integrity, and
others like us encouraging that usage through support groups, articles
and debates.
Steer clear of the flame wars and the trolls, they only generate anger
which leads to the dark side. This is still a good place to practice
skills and learn stuff whatever the detractors say.
--
John
Joe Bloggs
"John" <jg...@hotmill.con> wrote in message
> which leads to the dark side.
ROTFLMAO. Come to the dark side Luke...
UnKaH
NLP for it's theraputic values, some want it for modeling, some want it
for personal change, what is it isn't the question to ask, what can it
do for you or others is the real question to ask.
Tim
UnKaH
party going on.
it seems as if the only ones who get angry are the ones defending NLP.,
now if this technology was so great, easy to use, why oh why aren't
they using it to subdue the rage inside? You've got to wonder about
that. I can say for a fact that Joe, Myron, Tom or I don't get mad at
any posts written to offend us. Myself personnally, if I had any self
esteem I guess I would get mad but hey, really who gives a fuck what
anyone writes, they are only words, sticks and stones can break my
bones but hookers can only spank me. Use that wonderful tech, you call
NLP to resolve your anger, then come back and play with the big boys,
little man.
Tim
Tom Vizzini
April 2005 Melbourne, Australia Seminars
Sign up either individually or for both seminars
Essential Skills Accelerated Training
14-17 April 2005
Early Discount if you sign up by March 15th , 2005
3D Mind
(tm)
Practitioner Training
22-24 April
2005
Early Discount if you sign up by March 15th, 2005
What satisfied Clients are saying:
"Recently I started my first sales job in a retail appliance store. Three weeks later using the rapport and communication skills I'm now the top salesperson in my store! They're so impressed they've asked me to train all the other sales staff. I can hardly believe it!"
- Steve Hyde, 19, Dundee Scotland
"In four days with Tom Vizzini and Kim McFarland, I developed skills that would have taken me six months and cost tens of thousands of dollars with an executive coach. "
- Lynn Gabbay
"Thanks to 3D Mind I am able to live the life of my dreams more and more and doing so, I can help others along as well. It's the greatest gift I have ever come across."
- Hans Jager, Netherlands
"Tom and Kim just shook my world. I can safely say that I learnt more about NLP on the three-day seminar than I have on any other course, and had great fun in the process. This is a 'must go' seminar."
- Rintu Basu, Certified NLP Trainer
"I've got to say that attending your seminar was nothing short of a life-changing experience. If you come back next year, I'll be there - and I'll bring some friends!"
- Simon Bishop (si...@bishops.freeserve.co.uk)
"I was really skeptical of this but after actually experiencing it I have never seen anything so powerful."
- James at London Seminar
"I can now set anchors very easily all within 1 day of going through the material. As I am in sales this is a "priceless" skill for me to have... your training is very understandable yet powerful."
- Greg Hart (gha...@aol.com)
"I witnessed and participated in amazing changes both during and after that seminar. It is absolutely amazing how one short weekend can allow you to change your so much"
- John Goodhue (jo...@goodhue.org)
"All I can say is #$%^! How does that 3d mind technique work? I no longer have depression which I was suffering with for over 2 and half years, and I always used to shy away from people but now when I am in a group I'm always laughing and making jokes"
- James at London Seminar
"I'm amazed that I have eliminated a very bad habit that has always been a part of my life. The structure of what you teach is so simple. I just had to get my self out of the way and actually DO IT!"
- Jeffrey C. Carfagna (jef...@webtv.net)
"As a qualified social worker and NLP master practitioner I'm reasonably familiar with working with people. That's why I said "yes" when a family member of mine asked me to help her with a problem, although I expected that (knowing her) it would be hard to getting her to change.
In about twenty minutes using 3D Mind the problem was GONE. Like vanished. Like never been there."
- Ronald van Oosten (opsch...@wanadoo.nl)
"3D mind, when done properly, can induce a permanent lasting change."
- Dr Kenneth Giuffe- Innovator of the 3D Braon Model
"I was a combat veteran many years ago in a little country called Viet Nam and come down with severe PTSD ( Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ) which I had for the next 33 years.
I spent time, in the company of shrinks, therapists, NLP practitioners, all to no avail. Then I came across the 3-D Mind.
I decided to give it a whirl and all it took was 4 minutes. 33 years of PTSD gone in 4 minutes.
It was as if a 1,000 pounds of weight came off my shoulders, I am much more happier and much more open and receptive to people. 2005 is going to be a kick ass year for me."
-- Tim (monst...@essential-skills.com)
"After I'd done the 3D Mind process my speed was 1314 words per minute! But that wasn't the fastest, because right after I had changed my "reading behavior" I tested my speed at 1760 WPM!!
Did I mention that I love the 3D Mind? "
-- John
"The other day I had Phill take me through the 3-D mind on my procrastination. Not only did I have really positive effects immediately, I was started on a paper that I was procrastinating on for a week now"
- Israel Matos (ima...@exchange.oxy.edu)
"Hey Tom and Kim: I just
want to thank you guys for the GREAT work you did with me yesterday. I went out
this morning to test drive it and bingo, I'm a new person.
I have at
least $10,000 worth of books, videos,cassette tapes, and cds and have gotten no
where near the results I got with the 3D mind. I will be at the next seminar,
you can bet on that."
- Conrad L. McCalla (c.mcc...@attbi.com)
"I have spent the better part of my life trying to handle what only took 3 days with the new 3d mind model... I know that whatever comes up I can locate the appropriate drivers and resources to actually disolve it away and build a new state in its place. What a great feeling! Thanks!"
- Tom <tomtra...@eudoramail.com>
"This is James - we met at Ross's seminar in London. You helped me over my fear of the elevator with that amazing 3d mind technique. I'd like to say a big THANK YOU to you for the effect it has had on me.
When are your next Essential Skills seminars in london?"
James - London Seminar
"At the end of the first day, Tom did some work with me to help with a phobia of studying... Now I have been an amateur hypnotist for about 3 years and studying 'traditional NLP' for about 2, I'd tried imagining a scene, moving images, bigger / brighter etc.
Tom spent 5 minutes with me and hey presto. Solved! I got 94% in my exam last week.. Phobia. What phobia!"
Mark Hogan (jjjacks...@hotmail.com)
Tom and Kim are immensely gifted and original teachers - and I would recommend the essential skills seminar to anyone who wants to refine rapport, anchoring, visualization and so on
- Maverick.
"These are the second and third seminars I've been to with Kim and Tom. I must say they just get better and better. Not only did I learn fantastic new skills, but I also reinforced all of the previous skills I learned"
- Court Loeffler
"I just wanted to
take a moment and thank you for this course, I have studied a lot of NLP but I
can honestly say your training was the best I have ever had."
- Greg Hart
"Your teaching style is Fun and Entertaining and when I had questions you responded fast and actually cared and made sure I got it. I got my money's worth this would have probably cost me hundreds of dollars going to a traditional psychologist. Again thanks to your commitment to teaching and the great way you do business in today's age is very rare."
- Jeffrey C. Carfagna (jef...@webtv.net)
"These skills are propelling my career and my personal life in ways I hadn't thought possible. I can now read people; I find myself getting my way more often; and I handle stressful situations with ease.
Every day that passes without knowing Tom and Kim's Essential Skills and 3D Mind techniques is a wasted day. You owe it to yourself to explore their products and seminars, so stop reading testimonials and start changing your life forever."
- Lynn Gabbay
"Did I get my money's worth?" Well, it's now Tuesday and I'm still in awe over the wealth of information and the generosity of the Kim and Tom . It's one thing to read their posts and listen to their tapes.
But to be in their presence learning! WOW! Now you have an explosive, fun filled adventure. Yes, I believe I got my money's worth ... and then some!"
- Ron D. South Carolina
"Tom and Kim are immensely gifted and original teachers - and I would recommend the essential skills seminar to anyone"
- Maverick.
"My friend's sister was really afraid of spiders. Having learnt how to do 3D Mind, I took her through the process. A week later I was slightly shocked to hear that her fear of spiders had reduced so much she'd bought a tarantula as a pet!"
- Adam Fistler, USA
"I demonstrated my rapport skills to another co worker. I was able to shift his state from pretty crappy to feeling good and laughing, just by shifting my own state and leading through rapport. He thought it was freaky - I thought it was funny!"
- Adam Fistler, USA
"After watching the magical rapport videos I got a great technical job at the first interview I went to after five years working occasionally in completely different fields. I saw the managing director's demeanor change instantly for the better when I started using my new skill. He said I had an impressive CV, TWICE: that had never happened before, ever."
- Kaz UK
"Used 3D mind on a client, she feared a hospital appointment with suspected cancer. Did 3d mind on her fear and worry , it took 5 mins to do and that was 10 months ago, she said to me last week that, she did not know what I did but she had no fear or worry about it even now.
She is clear by the way. Great stuff 3d mind."
- Dez Sellars (completemindtherapy.com)
John
Greg Alexander
what NLP is, what it involves, and the claims. We're talking about
validating a claim without necessarily making the claim clear first.
For instance:
Myron lronhubb...@fastmail.to wrote:
> The hypothesis that if you look up and to the right you
> are accessing visual memory is demonstratably false
> and should be filed under myths and legends, but
> that there is a relation between eye direction and some
> mental activities seems potentially plausable and
> could merit further research.
Hi Myron,
Could you give me some info on where you've seen this disproved?
I agree that the hypothesis you give is demonstrably false, it's also
not one I or the people I've trained with would claim. Different people
have different eye accessing cues - for recall, some people look up
left, some look up right. I worked with one woman who had visual
construct looking left without looking up AND had auditory recall in
the same place.
I'm yet to see any research that firsts observes an individual while
questioning what they are accessing, to find patterns to their eye
movements - and then observes the same individuals eye movements while
predicting what they are accessing.
> The last word on the validity of a matter should not be the
> putative authority of a person or a committee but rather
> the results of peer review of empirical research;
Agreed totally.
> NLP itself is derivative -- as I've gone to great lengths to
> demonstrate.
>
> One example is that Bandler and Grinder took Pavlov's
> classical conditioning and relabelled it "anchoring".
> NLP borrows heavily from behaviorism.
NLP is derivative in many ways, as are many developments.
Anchoring and classical conditioning differ in a couple of ways.
1) Classical condition requires multiple repetitions for a connection
to be made, while anchoring is performed once.
2) Anchoring is performed immediately before a state peaks, rather than
at some associated time. The decision on when to do the anchor is based
on calibration of signals from the subject (or self). This direct link
(rather than time delayed) has an effect on how quickly something is
anchored.
> That is to say, Bandler and Grinder took from mainline
> psychology, philosophy, lingusitics, general systems theory
> and computer science theory.
I'm sure they did.
> (5) The money-making charade of NLP certification should
> be abandoned. NLP certification is of dubious value.
> There is no central standard setting body, no quality
> control and in any event no-one outside of the
> self-referential NLP universe recognises or cares about
> Practitioner and Master Practitioner designations;
A difficult call. Unfortunately without an agreed standard it really is
self-referential, though I don't think removing money-making is a
workable solution. How would you create this new standard?
> >Adam Sargant wrote:
> >> I wonder if we are not just seeing an incredibly long
> >>"storming" stage in the evolution of NLP. At some point,
> >> I would like to see NLP embraced by mainstream psychology
Psychology and NLP have quite different things to offer, though often
the 2 fields blur around the edges.
One blurring is in coaching or counselling - this is just an
application that NLP can be used for
> (6) Modelling exemplary behaviour should be raised in importance,
> perhaps to a central position. The exemplary behaviour should be
> empirically measurable (at least partially) and not entirely
subjective in
> nature.
New Code NLP places modelling as the central position. Modelling
excellence is clearly NOT psychology.
Psychology has only recently begun to move away from "how do we take
this person from bad to average" to asking "how can we take this person
from average to great". So there interest in this is greater than it
was.
Psychology is also not about looking at a single example of excellence
and replicating what they can do. Psychology might compare a group of
people's performance before modelling an expert with their performance
after modelling an expert. This could either confirm someone's
expertise, or be used to validate a certain modelling pattern.
> (7) Notions of mystical modes of knowledge transfusion,
> eg. unconscious installation of complex skills in trainings,
> should be discarded.
You yourself have said we learn in many ways, including naturally
learning through modelling etc. Without going back to that thread, I'd
agree with Adam that the methods of learning could be testable. They
are certainly already detailed and explained or they were in my
training.
>(8) A critical culture should be fostered,
Yes. What should we be critical of though?
Some of NLP belongs in psychology, some is it's own field.
Good thread, I wish I had more time to read... I'll get to it :)
Greg
Greg Alexander
Tom Vizzini wrote:
> I have been looking into New Code in NLP that is being offered
> by Grinder. I'm trying to discern exactly what is new.
Hi Tom,
Each time I read some far out NLP claim I'm glad I studied New Code.
Sure I was also trained in the classic stuff, but it was done in a
manner which removed much of the sensational claims and added a far
greater respect for calibrating objections, systemic change, ecology,
and unconscious signals.
I'm just wondering what you've found in New Code so far? (whether you
see it as new or not).
Greg