From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:26:06 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.005236.19186@ucc.su.OZ.AU> ben@archsci.arch.su.oz.au (Ben Colbron) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.202712.557@spectra.com>, ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
>
>|> 
>|> 	"What is true or real to YOU may not be what is true or real
>|> 	 to ME."
>
>Is this phenomenology? Existentialism? If so, it opens up a
>Pandora's box. I might be being pedantic, but my point is that
>when the theoretical underpinnings of positions are taken to their
>logical conclusions, they are often shown to be logically incoherent.
>This is important because the fact seems often to be overlooked in
>psychology that 'empirical results' are only as good as the theory 
>which underlies them. If the theory is untenable, the results must
>be brought into question.

	I agree.  I am not a scientist, psychologist, therapist or
	anything associated with these professions.  I do have 
	experience with NLP/NAC from a "users" point of view and am
	aware of several of the theories that helped create the 
	meta-model and NLP.  And I believe that NLP should be questioned.
	I questioned it, others have.  Excuse my terminology as I
	sometimes try to provide lamen terminology and metaphors to those
	who have little or no experience with NLP.

	I tried NAC (Neuro-Associative Conditioning) which is based
	on NLP, and quickly noticed changes in me that appeared to
	empower me.  And I also noticed that others that used had
	very different reactions.  Some people can change in a moment,
	others take an hour or a week or month or years, some people
	may never change.  This prompted me to research Bandler and 
	Grinders techniques more and I noticed that they had somewhat
	of a different approach than the way I was taught.  So there
	was obviously some shift in the theory through time.
	
>Having said that, however, we may be talking at cross-purposes here.
>You seem to be discussing NLP from a purely pragmatic point of view
>(in terms of its 'usefulness') and not holding it up as a psychological
>theory. [Here I must apologise, I have not read all the posts on NLP
>and may be merely restating the obvious, but...]

	Only to the extent of explaining it to others initially.
	We can discuss the psychological theory along with Lee Lady
	and Don Steiny who have a more in-depth knowledge to the
	psychological theory than I as they have been through the
	formal training, if they choose to.
 
>|> >There is folk-psychology and there is science. Then there is simple
>|> >logic. To which do you subscribe?
>|> 
>|> 	I don't claim to subscribe to any of the above, I let you
>|> 	decide which one.  What I do subscribe to is results.  
>
>If NLP 'works' for you - great. I hear religion works sometimes, too.
>So do sugar pills labelled "aspirin". As a scientific psychologist, however,
>I am trained not to take such 'results' at face value but to investigate
>*how* and *why* such phenomena 'work'. This is why I question some of 
>the terminology you have been using. If this is not the level at which
>you are discussing the topic, however, what I'm saying is probably
>redundant.

	That's great.  If you wish to pursue this further I would be
	interested in discussing it with you.  I have little experience
	in "scientific study" but I have used NLP/NAC daily and am
	always trying to find out the why.  

>Have a good day, too.
>
>Ben

	Kawika 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology