Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA10644 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:36:54 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000620131053.00b8c830@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:34:06 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth In-Reply-To: <20000620160459.AAA22177@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.2 15]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_268063165==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:30 AM 6/21/00 +1000, Chris Lofting wrote:
>Have a look at ANY modern NLP text, especially those that train you to
>create light trance states. There has been an ongoing discussion on one
>paper on the net re using NLP to 'score' with women, see alt.psychology.nlp
>newsgroup, should still be around.
Chris,
I think it is appropriate to tell Wade whether this recommendation is based
on fully reading a specific NLP text. If so, then you should tell Wade
exactly which text you are recommending. If there is a list of specific
texts that you have fully read and recommend, then of course provide Wade
with that list. Author, title, publisher, date. This way, Wade can evaluate
the specific claims that you are endorsing. Likewise for the paper in
question: in order for Wade to evaluate the specific claims about using NLP
to "score" with women, he needs to know exactly what paper is being
recommended--its author, title, place of publication, and date. If the
specific publications are not known, then the specific claims cannot be
know. If the specific claims are not known, then the empirical or
theoretical basis for those claims is not known. With so many unknowns, it
becomes impossible to subject the claims to examination by the scientific
method. Without knowing which works you have personally read, it is also
not possible for Wade to know if you even had the possibility of
scrutinizing the methods by which the conclusions about trance states and
seduction were reached, or attempting to replicate any empirical studies
involved.
--Aaron Lynch
At 12:04 PM 6/20/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>On 06/20/00 11:30, Chris Lofting said this-
>
> >Have a look at ANY modern NLP text
>
>Well, therein is my problem, you see. Because I also look at places like
>this - http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html and I'm not ready to get past the
>type of bullshit I presently perceive NLP to be.
>
>So, yeah, I really _do_ want a smoking gun, and so far, anecdotes and
>papers by self-interested (hence my "specious claim of ego-biased
>influence-peddling") practitioners ain't offered me one.
>
>- Wade
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:37:39 BST