From: steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Visualization, NLP, Science (was NLP)
Keywords: NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:59:24 GMT
Organization: Don Steiny Software


	I have been reading an interesting book called "Introduction to
Human Memory."   The books was written by a cognitive psychology professor
(Vernon Gregg) at the University of London in 1988, so it is not too 
out-of-date. 

	The book touches on the change in approach to psychology that marked
the decline of behaviorism and the rise of cognitive psychology and gives
credit to the linguist, Noam Chomsky, for the philosophical arguments that
caused a paradigm shift in the human sciences.    This same paradigm was
the one used in linguistics and also for NLP (I am sure of this because
I have discussed it extensively with one of the founders, John Grinder).

	The book then goes on to discuss many subjects that are touched on
by NLP, including visualization, representational systems, and hypnosis.

	However, it is a scientific approach.    Tests produce evidence,
and scientists form hypothesis.   Though some of the people who have been
posting about NLP seem pretty clueless about this, NLP is also supposed to
work on this basis.   A hypothesis is never "true" or a "fact"--it is 
"supported by evidence" or there is "counter evidence" showing that the 
hypothesis could not be valid.

	I want to mention some current scientific thinking about visualization.

	First off, there are standardized tests that people can buy that test
people's ability to visualize based on their own subjective experience.  
Apparently children often (10%) have total visual recall and the ability goes 
away as they get older.   Adults range from being able to have very accurate
and clear visual images to none at all.   Some adults can construct visual
images.   Some adults can alter these images easily (what NLP calls 
"submodalities").    Contrary to what one person asserted, there is no 
evidence that these abilities can be taught or learned.   

	But what is most fascinating about this is that there is also no 
evidence that they are important.

	Given the task of counting the windows in their house, it is intuitive
that the way a person would do it would be to imagine walking through the 
house and to count the windows.    However, in this and a large number of
similar tests the people who were good visualizers scored no better than
the ones who could not visualize at all.    Because of this and a number 
of other results in the book many cognitive psychologists have come to the
conclusion that visualization is an "epiphenomena"--that is a byproduct
of the acutal process whereby the solution is found.    At the time the book
was written no one had found a compelling proof one way or the other, but
evidence is mounting that consciousness is a byproduct of mental processing
and not the source.   One wonderful description of consciousness is the
fabulously written "Consciousness and the Computational Mind" by Ray
Jackendoff, a linguist, who among other things, contributed the notion of
X-bar syntax to linguistic models.

	NLP itself has often downplayed the role of consciousness.  Gregory 
Bateson once said "consciousness is a gift from the unconscious."   While
NLP techniques appear to work in some cases, it seems that users of the
techniques are in danger of limiting their own possiblities by accepting
a hypothesis as "fact."   
	
-don
-- 
Don Steiny
Don Steiny Software
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 425-0382
Newsgroups: sci.psychology