From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:05:54 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <130@steiny.com> steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
>
>>Understand that what we are talking about here, since noone has
>>produced any major piece of "scientific study" of NLP, is our
>>beliefs.  A belief is simply a rule or generalization of what must
>>happen in order for something to be "true" or experienced.
>
>	If you had been reading this group for a while you would realize
>that many readers feel that the "sci" in "sci.psychology" stands for
>"science" and since, as you said, noone has produced any major piece
>of scientific study of NLP, perhaps the NLP discussion belongs elsewhere.
>
>	Personally, I do not agree.   

	I agree with you.

>	However, your uncritical acceptance of NLP is disturbing.   Can't
>followers of the Reverend Moon, Werner Ehardt, or L. Ron Hubbard make similar
>statements?   What is the difference between you saying that NLP must be valid
>because I had a change in my thought processes and someone saying that
>Scientology must be valid, or EST, or whatever?    It is not to say that they
>are not, but you are missing some of the elements of a persuasive argument,
>for instance, reduplicatability.

	First I was uncritical at first after reading TR's 2 books and
	completing his personal power tape series.  But after a couple
	of days I wanted to know his sources.  I already read many of
	the books he quoted and so I began reading Bandler/Grinder books
	which I quickly discovered were very confusing and not very
	easy to read as they were translations of seminars with professionals.

	If you are saying that this group only belongs to scientists,
	of which I'm not one, you may be shutting out a large percentage
	of people with useful information for scientists to have available.
	
	Duplicatability? I have done it over and over with myself and others.

>	Just wait 15 years and see what you think then.   

	I won't wait but I will use it and 15 years will come.

>	If you talk about NLP in a public forum, you are preaching.   If you
>have nothing better to say about it than "wow, cosmic" you are not doing NLP
>a service.    Tony Robins is being sued by dozens of people right now, Richard
>Bandler was indicted for murder, his trial uncovered a life of massive
>cocaine consumption, kinky sex (he liked to be tied up and whipped).  
>It is pretty clear that he did indeed murder the prostitute and that he got
>off because of a legal technicality. 

	Well that's your belief and I respect that.  But preaching to me
	is the instilling of ones own beliefs on another.  I only offer it
	for your review, you on the other hand are trying to change my
	beliefs to yours.  Who's preaching?

	TR is being sued, Bandler is a criminal.  Gallileo was considered
	a criminal too, aren't we glad he wasn't killed?  Seriously, I
	don't mean to justify the actions of others as I don't control
	the actions of others, only our interpretation of them.  
	If someone gives you a pat on the back or a $10 dollar bill and
	later you find that that person was a murderer, does that mean
	that their gift to you was any less effective?  Not to me.
	If they committed a crime of society they should be tried in 
	court, I love america.  But to take away a life's worth of work
	and disclaim it based on bad judgement, or really bad judgement,
	is to cut possibilities from your life.  If you decide that something
	is not possible, for whatever reason, you live in ignorance of 
	their knowledge.  I was always taught and live my life in a way
	that accepts every action or resource as a possibility because I
	had nothing for a good part of my life.  It may be useful for you
	to look at their knowledge with an open mind, maybe like a scientist.

>	It is ironic that I appear to be taking an anti-NLP position, because
>I have worked for and with John Grinder for 15 years and consider him a good
>friend.   I have even made some minor contributions to "NLP."   However,
>I like to see people think for themselves and too many people seem to be
>making NLP into a religion.
>
>	There is in fact a church in Los Angeles called "the church of the
>optimum outcome."   They think John and Richard are the second coming of
>Christ or something totally weird like that.

	TR noted this too.  That's why he doesn't like NLP and created
	a different acronym, NAC.

>	If you write to a group where many of the readers are academic
>psychologists and you make a philosophical statement about "beliefs" 
>it is if you are telling biologists that they have to accept creation
>science as an act of faith.    You are NOT pacing or getting into their
>model of the world.   You are failing at NLP.

	Beliefs are great and I now know several of yours.  Unfortunately
	you attempt to twist mine and I wish you fun in your game of
	"let's make up a bunch of beliefs for someone else."

>-don
>
>P.S. Every time I read your "have a nice day" signature, it comes of as
>     extremely insulting, kind of like you are saying the "f" word to 
>     everyone.   "You are totally wrong and have no idea of what's going 
>     on . . . have a nice day."

	It's have a great day! and your the first one to be annoyed
	by it.  And I reserve the "f" word for special occasions like 
	when my girlfriends cat decides my leg is a scratch post.
	
	I will gladly signoff in another way for any correspondence
	I send you.  Have a day!

	Kawika