HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Subject: Re: NLP
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:52:50 GMT

In article <188k0aINNl81@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>exudeb@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>= When trying to help someone else visualize, it can be helpful to prove to
>= them that they can do it, even if they believe they can't.  One way to do
>= this is to ask them something that they are sure to know unconsciously,
>= like, "How many traffic lights are there between your home and your office."
>= Now, they probably have never actually counted them, so they will have to
>= "visualize" the whole route, counting as they go.  Only after they have done
>= it, do I point out to them that they had to be able to visualize to do it.
>= I have never found anyone that could not do this...
>
>Well, I can tell you how many traffic lights there are between my home
>and my office, but I don't call up any visual image to do that.  The
>way I do it is this:  I mentally project myself along the route from
>my home to my office, and I count each traffic light as I pass it.
>But I don't "see" a picture as I do that.  I have a strong sense of
>spatial orientation, and a "feel" for the positions and sizes and
>shapes of the objects I pass, but no picture.

How do you know the size of the object?
How do you know the shape of it?

What are you sensing?


Have a great day!

Kawika 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: bjornl@milton.u.washington.edu (Bjorn Levidow)
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:20:45 GMT

In article <lavk95INN5l5@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I noticed some people critiquing NLP as not being scientific.
>This leads me to ask what has psychology proven with scientific rigor?

Well, first off, you have to make a distinction here between observable
phenomenon and theoretical constructs.  There are a number of psychological
phenomenon, such as priming effects of related words, which have been
demonstrated time and time again.  There are too many such phenomenon to list
here. 

As for proving a psychological theory, most philosophers of science will tell
you, you can't ever prove a theory.  The best you can do is to accumulate
evidence which is consistant with one theory and inconsistant with others.
This is true in any dicipline which uses the scientific method.    

>After you remove advances in genetics, biology, and chemistry, which
>aren't under the province of psychology, how has psychology advanced
>science? 
>

What do you consider science?  Do you mean the quest for knowledge?  Do you
mean the ability to explain phenomona?  Without being more specific, I can't
construct a reply.

===============================================================================
\  Bjorn Levidow                    |   Romance is unreal...it's the essence  /
\  Dept. of Psychology      NI-25   |   of life, but not the reality of it.   /
\  University of Washington         |               ---Robyn Hitchcock        /
\  Seattle, WA  98195               |   It's mine!  All mine!                 /
\  bjornl@u.washington.edu          |   I'm independently thoughtful!         /
===============================================================================


Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:10:41 GMT

In article <8SEP199208144129@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>Eventually there will be a photo that even you will agree doesn't
>add up. So far things have apparently been too subtle for you.
>It's not just a matter of randomness, as Ken Aromdee thinks.
>There is a trend making such photos or news stories more likely.

If you keep on looking for odd photos, eventually you will find one which
I will have to admit I cannot explain.  But, you would be able to do this
regardless of whether or not any photos are actually faked.  You see, nobody
has perfect knowledge.  Eventually, you will find a photo whose explanation
falls within a gap in others' knowledge.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Brainwashing
Summary: Request for info
Date: 5 Sep 92 13:21:23 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.



 I have been looking for information about brainwashing techniques employed
by cults, Christian revivalists etc. (allegedly) and someone suggested I ask
if anyone here has any info on it or knows where to get it;

Does anyone here have any information on the subject, particularly in the
area of Neuro-linguistics? If so, I'd be most grateful if they could e-mail
it to me.

Anything at all would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

     Stephen D Murray
<murraysd@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX


In article 18974@linus.mitre.org, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.142841.22382@philabs.philips.com> ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch) writes:
>}To what extent can one actually develop ones visualization abilities? Is this a 
>}skill that gradually develops over time? Why are some people so much better 
>}than others at visualizing to begin with?
>
>Would someone who thinks visually (pictures Venn diagrams, works out organic
>chemistry problems by picturing the molecule and twisting it,...) have an
>ability with this?  I really have not looked into NLP in depth.
>
>

Yes, this is part of it.  In my own case, I had strong skills visualizing this kind of information (I call it "schematic"), but almost no skills visualizing real world images (people, places, things, etc.).  I am much better at the latter now, but still not as good as I am at the former.

Dave
From: steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Change, NLP, and science (was NLP)
Keywords: NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:14:01 GMT
Organization: Don Steiny Software


	I am sorry that that article was kind of scattered.   People kept
calling and coming in and talking to me.    I offered several ideas, but
did not tie them together.


	1.  There are many psychologists that believe that change happens
	    rapidly and this is not an exclusive part of NLP.

	2.  Much of NLP overlaps with cognitive psychology, however NLP people
	    are quite careless with their claims and often seem unwilling
	    to examine the other research (this is less true of the founders
	    as some of the new "converts")

	3.  Science and NLP are both models and neither is "true."    The
	    father of modern cognitive psychology, William James, also
	    was a proponent of "pragmatism" which holds that truth is a matter
	    of utility.   If NLP is getting results in clinical use it is
	    as silly for scientists to ignore it as it is for NLP people to
	    ignore the results of scientific research.  

	4.  We may as well discuss it here, because many clinical psychologists
	    have attended NLP seminars and "use" the "skills" in their 
	    practice.   It is arguable that psychology is not a science anyway.

-don
-- 
Don Steiny
Don Steiny Software
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 425-0382
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From:  vae@mch.chem.msu.su  (Alexandr Voiskounsky)
Subject: Resrect
Reply-To: vae@mch.chem.msu.su
Organization: unknown
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 13:04:24 MSD

I give all my respect to late  prof.  Perry  London.  Let  his
relatives and coworkers know about it.
     In the obituary Gary Cherniss has written:
 >also noted for his studies of altruism in Christians who
 >risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis.
     Can anyone list these publlications or - that`ll be
     really nice - send me some copies by ordinary mail?
     Being Jewish I`m really interested in the results
     gained in this research field.

             Thanks in advance,
     Alexander Voiskounsky           Psychology Dept
     vae@mch.chem.msu.su             Moscow University
                                     Mokhovaya 8/5
                                     Moscow 103009
                                     Russia


Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: the forum
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 08:02:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


The only connection between the forum and the est training is that
both were invented by Werner Erhard. They have completely different
roots, approaches and goals.

The est training was designed, I think, to deal with the focus on
the individual of the '70s and early '80s. It is an approach to
the same sort of enlightenment provided by Zen and some other
disciplines. It uses semi-shock techniques to get people to step
outside their personal egos, and see things as they are. It was
retired some years ago and is no longer available, thought the
flavor may be approached through several books on the subject. It
draws on techniques from Zen, Scientology, guided imagery,
and some transpersonal psychology. (My take on this--dunno what
Werner Erhard would say.)

The forum examines the being of human beings, the nature of being,
the nature of man, and the nature of a rewarding life. It draws
almost entirely on the work of the philosopher Heidegger, though
it also includes some material from other sources, and a very few
elements of the est training. It is gentle and persuasive, rather than
shocking and demanding. As one example of the context, in the est
training people were pressed hard against their limitations--forbidden
to go to the bathroom except at infrequent breaks, etc. as a way to
force them to confront things that are usually not in consciousness.
In the forum people get up and go to the bathroom whenever they feel
like it, and the atmosphere is one of respect and gentle leading,
rather than confrontation.

In the est training, the initial confront was people being called
tubes, later assholes. It was a shock treatment to get them to see
that their lives were taking food in one end and excreting out the
other end, with much of the rest being stimulus-response, mechanical,
unconscious (not "the unconscious" but mostly mechanical unawareness).
In the forum, the initial approach is through people's humanity.
It is an exploration of what a human life is, and can be summed
up by the aphorism "when they gave the party to decide what
human being is, you weren't invited, but you're bound by it"
or, for those more familiar with it, Heidegger's notion of
"thrown-ness" of human being.

Both programs were among the most valuable I've done. I was a member
of the est advisory board, along with a number of physicians,
psychiatrists, religious and civic leaders. Both programs are informed
by mainstream professional advice from such people. Both programs have
been participated in by ordinary citizens, physicians, psychiatrists,
rabbis, Catholic Bishops, educators, senior business executives, and
other "centrist" types. Neither program has a particularly "new age"
artsy craftsy or fringe tone, though a few beards and sandals
occasionally show up.

David
From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: the forum
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:10:08 GMT
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: strnlght@netcom.com's message of 15 Sep 92 08:02:09 GMT

In article <aczn-f+.strnlght@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

   The est training was designed, I think, to deal with the focus on
   the individual of the '70s and early '80s. 

you were on the advisary board and you you are not sure what the goals
were?  Curious.  All I know is a friend of mine had a terrible time
trying to get out -- they pestered her for weeks.  Maybe the organizers
just didn't have "it", or maybe they just temporarily misplaced "it".

   It is an approach to
   the same sort of enlightenment provided by Zen and some other
   disciplines. 

This betrays a distinct ignorance of Zen --- what do you mean by a "sort
of enlightenment provided"?  This is not Zen.  Are your feet on the
floor, your bum in a chair?  Can you feel the draught against your
cheek? The air enter and leave your nostrils?  Where did your concerns
go while you checked?  This hints at Zen practice.  If there is talk of
beginning or end, it is all deception.

   In the forum, the initial approach is through people's humanity.
   It is an exploration of what a human life is, and can be summed
   up by the aphorism "when they gave the party to decide what
   human being is, you weren't invited, but you're bound by it"
   or, for those more familiar with it, Heidegger's notion of
   "thrown-ness" of human being.

Sorry, Dave, maybe nobody told you (or maybe you're just tugging a party
line here and truly do not agree) but ... the party is still on! You are
invited!  Welcome in, and start with your next breath to define what
being human is!  The initial approach is with the billions who now and
for millions of years back support and nurture this you of now, despite
your missing the point.  So here comes the ballot: lobby away!

There. I feel much better now ;-)  Sorry, folks ---
We now return you to the science of psychology.

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
          "Pile up effort and the mind changes." --- Morita
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:16:37 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 16174@u.washington.edu, bjornl@milton.u.washington.edu (Bjorn Levidow) >As 
>What do you consider science?  Do you mean the quest for knowledge?  Do you
>mean the ability to explain phenomona?  Without being more specific, I can't
>construct a reply.

I mean the application of the scientific method to problems addressed by
psychologists. First, what are the problems addressed by psychologists?
Second, what are the goals of psychologists concerning these problems?
Third, how do they solve these problems? Fourth, what have been the results?
I can answer these questions for several scientific fields but not
psychology, which isn't suprising since I'm not a psychologist.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Science/Engineering Dichotomy
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 11:19:20 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Montgomery J. Moose writes:
>  I have met a number of clinicians, and all of them have found that 
The only study that I am aware of showing an effect against even
>studies are not extremely useful when used alone in therapy.  Good 
therapists 
>have to learn techniques that are very subjective and 
qualitative--empathy, 
>listening, and intuition.  These techniques are not merely ignored but 
actively
>suppressed in many schools, who are concentrating on the objective, 
scientific
>aspects of psychology.
...
>  Psychology schools need to learn to teach what they claim to be 
teaching--
>therapy.  As the situation stands, they are doing more harm than good 
and 
>simply not acting as effective educators.
 
After nearly a century of flailing around, we aren't much better off
in psychotherapy than we were when we started.  
 
The inability to do double blind controls isn't the problem since we have
seen surgery progress without them (albiet with some controversy).
 
The problem is that the very basics of science have been consistently
violated in psychotherapy with only a very paltry number of
statistically significant claims to success.  
 
The only study that I am aware of showing even an effect against
modest controls was that conducted by Dr. Michael Holden on the
patients from Aurther Janov's primal therapy -- and even this result
is tarred with the "pop psychology" brush of the 1970s.

If anyone knows of better results I'd be interested.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Sherri)
Subject: Re: NLP phobia treatments
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:13:18 GMT


Hey, we alt.sexual.abuse.recovery readers want the methods, not just
the knowledge that they exist :)

Seriously, Lee Lady once mentioned using methods for dealing with
traumatic memories.  Could you crosspost that to asar?  That would
be useful for a lot of people, as long as they can realistically be
used when you're numb, hyperventilating, feeling like a three-year-old,
and experiencing tactile hallucinations.  If these techniques really
work, could you post them _really_ soon or email them to me?  Thanks

Sherri
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:54:26 GMT
	<1685F6988.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> <00716272435@elgamy.sccsi.com>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <00716272435@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric
Lee Green) writes:

   The current state-of-the-art in psychological experimental research
   is not to predict whether a certain procedure X will work or not.
   Rather, it is to detirmine the percentage of people who will be
   helped by procedure X, as compared to a placebo procedure. The
   immediate goal is to seperate out the effects caused by normal
   healing and placebo effects from the effects caused by procedure X.
   The long-term goal is to detirmine which procedures have the
   highest probability of working. Then, hopefully, when a clinician
   is choosing interventions, he can start with one that works with
   90% of people and if that doesn't work, go on down the list to one
   that maybe only works with 1% of people but this person happens to
   be in that 1%.

I am not sure what a "placebo" is (nor do the papers I have scanned
seem to be sure).  However, NLP has been shown in various studies to
be as effective as selected other therapies in given situations.  I am
aware of no study that shows that any other therapy is more effective
than NLP for a situation that NLP is intended to cover.  (Note: "any
other therapy" above specifically

   My supervisor at school asked me the same question: "Why are you so
   research-oriented? If it works, who cares whether it's the placebo
   effect or whatever?" My answer was basically above -- research
   doesn't tell me what will work with one particular student, but it
   does tell me what will work with MOST of my students. Once I have
   9/10ths of my students taken care of, I can then expend my energy
   on individually choosing appropriate methods for taking care of the
   remaining 1/10th of the students -- instead of spending enormous
   time and energy trying random methods on each student, I only have
   to do that with 1/10th of the students.

   Not to mention that many placebos are expensive (NLP training ain't
   cheap, folks, and neither is computer-assisted-instruction in
   education -- both of which may get their primary effect from
   placebo effects). In this case, you may wish to substitute a less
   expensive but equally effective placebo -- but without the
   research, you wouldn't have a clue.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:07:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.175138.27702@nevada.edu>, windsong@nevada.edu (Anne Racel) writes...
>I wonder if the reason people obeyed the museum sign was NOT as a response to
>authority, NOR as  "good citizens" but because of expectation of reward:
>ie that the exhibit would do something or that there would be an interesting
>outcome. Besides, people had come to the museum for the purpose of 


I have to agree, this could be the real reason people obeyed the sign
in this context. In fact, I myself paused at the entrance, wondering
whether there were electrical sensors under the tiles and they might be
measuring "stride dynamics under constraints" or some such thing.
So I went around to the exit and peeked at the text next to the
exhibit and saw the name Milgram. Only then was I satisfied that
I knew what was going on.

The points made in other followups about the bond of trust we
have in our society with the authorities that directives are
there for a purpose is also well-taken. One example given was
road signs. However, as my hecklers made known, I have a special
interest in this issue because I think we've come to extend to
certain institutions (the news media, specifically) the mantle
of authority they shouldn't have to the extent we aren't aware
of consciously. 

Now, here's an oddity that didn't occur to me until after I
had made my original posting: those men in baseball caps who
carefully stepped on the black squares. I was raised to believe,
for no good reason except that my parents told me, that men
should take off their caps indoors -- and a museum is "indoors,"
isn't it? -- and these guys were definitely older than I am! 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: na
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:28:48 GMT

Eric Zorrilla writes:
> Suppose a person begins having trouble walking.  Specifically, one of
> his legs doesn't really seem to want to go where he wants it to go and
> he reports feeling pain in one of his joints (phenomenological
> experience)....  neurologists and neuroanatomists cut open
> the skin of his leg and find that his patellar region is greatly
> compressed.  Somehow, it has affected the local production of
> acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction and some sensory cells in
> the area have begun secreting Substance P.  Both the patient and the
> doctors are seeing and referring to the same referent, but their
> vantage points on the physical phenomena are different.  The patient's
> experience of it is expressed primarily subjectively.  The doctors'
> observation of it is 3rd person and primarily objective.

No sort crossing here.

We see it is possible, even productive, to discuss legs and feelings
without confusing the two.  At no time were statements made like "the
pain you're feeling is the Substance P".  It may well be that we can
make useful and causal statements about the relationship between the
pain and the substance.  But we're not confused about the two, we
understand that feelings and substances are different sorts of things.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Newsgroups: sci.psychology