From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (FAQ)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:48:11 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland
Keywords: NLP   NeuroLinguistic Programming



Some guy e-mailed to me what follows, and asked me to post it for him
because his site lacks posting privileges:




Hello all!  At this present time, my Internet mailer is broken, and George
has kindly consented to post this message for me. (eriksejl@wfunet.wfu.edu):

Sharon Fisher: >>>>Neuro-Linguistic Programming (FAQ) writes:  
 	georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:

>>I purchased that memory enhancement, home-study cassette course that
>>you see advertised on half-hour TV infomercials. It was worthless.

>You buy things from infomercials and you call *NLP* a crock?  Well,
>never mind.  Carry on.

A humorous insult, but anecdotal - definately not something from which one
can draw conclusions.   Next point.  

>>The underlying theory is that your brain thinks in pictures. You
>>imagine a peg board, and then you imagine hanging pictures of things
>>you want to remember onto the imaginary peg board. It was intriguing,
>>but it got me nowhere.

Actually, I've had good results using this method.  I can memorize an
entire deck of cards and repeat it back to the person in order after going
through it four times in a row.  These memory techniques are very useful,
if you have the patience and practice enough at them.  Instead of
purchasing a home-study course off the commercial, George, you should have
picked up a copy of Harry Loryane's "Page-A-Minute Memory Book" for $4.95
(or was it $5.95 - I can't remember).

[Stuff deleted]

>>I threw the memory home-study course in the trash.
   ^^^^^^

If it was that guy from "Amazing Discoveries," I wish you had thrown him in
the trash too. :-)

>Further evidence that you may be predominantly kinesthetic (as opposed
>to your saying, "I could see that it was a complete waste," or "It
>sounds like crap to me").

Sorry to burst your bubble, Sharon, but this has never been verified in
clinical studies.  There is no correlation known between sensory imagery and 
language use in the context that you are describing.  It sounds nice, and
perhaps on some level is a useful metaphor, but for any sort of argument
that has value it is a worthless statement.  How many psychology research
studies have you read on the validity of NLP?  I've read abstracts or
whole reports of almost all of them, and very few bear out any claims that
NLP'rs make.  

Carol is fond of saying (paraphrased here of course :), "It works 
because my subjective experience and common sense verifies that it does,"
and it seems that you agree with her on that point, but I in turn ask you
to consider whether your mind is making connections out of your
perceptions, or if your perceptions are emerging out of fictional
connections you make?  There is a very thin line between the two; without
a ground to base your distinction upon (if you do not rely upon verifiable
evidence such as research studies) I do not see how you can possibly argue one
way or the other.

My opinions about NLP are based in part upon my observations, and part
upon scientific studies.  Are yours?

******************************* - cut here - *********************************

Thanks for posting this George!


  


Newsgroups: sci.psychology,alt.hypnosis