HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: NLP
Keywords: NLP   NeuroLinguistic Programming
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:59:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.122207.18974@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.
>
>

This post is quite interesting to me, because I was just thinking about this
ability the other day.  As I sat in TacoBell, I looked over at a guy
wearing a tee-shirt and khaki pants hunched over his food.  I mentally
picked him up and rotated him head-over-heels and also along the vertical
axis.  It looked like the shuttle pilots spinning in zero-G.  I don't
know why I was doing this exercise, other than as a kind of idle
mental game.  At the time, I wondered briefly if other people did this
sort of thing.

I'm a freelance technical writer/illustrator, and I often view fairly
complicated pieces of equipment and then render them from memory.  If it
contributes anything to the discussion, here are some things I've noticed:

1.  I remember visual details of a machine better if they are part of
    a system.  Eg. I might remember that a car's wheels are round and
    on the ground, if I understand the car rolls on them (to take a
    stupid example).

2.  If I draw from memory, I often come up with a "schematic" representation
    of the object I'm drawing.  The drawing is proportional and has all the
    major components, but non-functional details are missing.

3.  To solve (2), I often make rough sketches of detailed areas of a machine
    and then put the details together in a sort of mental 3D collage to create
    the final drawing.

4.  I can look at an object from the front and project mentally what
    the back and sides look like in order to draw a 3D view of it.  Of
    course, the projection is just a guess...

5.  I've listened to a verbal description of an object and drawn it pretty
    accurately.

6.  I sometimes "reinvent" parts of a machine by making incorrect
    guesses/extrapolations.  This can sometimes be quite interesting!

7.  Of course, I'll probably get out of practice, since now I use a
    video camera to record everything! 

Cheers,
Craig
-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:29:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

As Frank Fujita semi-humorously pointed out, our differences are philosophical
ones which are summed up in Jon's statement:

>But we're not confused about the two, we
>understand that feelings and substances are different sorts of things.

My philosophical "solution" of mind/body relations is that feelings and
substances are identical things.  One does not cause the other.  One is not
associated with the other.  One IS the other but observed from a different
viewpoint (in Frank's words - the "emergent" properties of the system).  There
isn't a good analogy for us to use because nothing approaches the complexity
of the human brain. (at least nothing that I know of)

Clearly I'm not foolish enough to argue for a one-to-one mapping of a
ligand-receptor compex of Substance P to one "unit" of subjective pain.
The nervous system is much more useful than that and phenomenological
experience necessarily arises out of complexity that only enormously complex
math can model.  However, the mental MUST have a physical instantiation.
Otherwise, what would it be?

How can you even DO behavioral neuroscience without recognizing that the
behavior (or if you're ballsy enough - the cognitive activity) you're
examining is instantiated in physical matter?

[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
From: roussea@server.uwindsor.ca (ROUSSEAU PAUL            )
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Change, NLP, and science (was NLP)
Keywords: NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Date: 15 Sep 1992 01:42:26 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <129@steiny.com> steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
>
>	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.
>
>I've just begun to monitor sci.psychology tonight.  I'm a master
practitioner in NLP and I've very pleased that people like Don Steiny
are around trying to make progress in the ongoing fight between NLP and
mainline psychology.

Another psychologist that NLPers should read is George Kelly (A theory
of personality, 1963).  Kelly writest that are highly motivated
to make sense out of their world.  To do this, Kelly claims that
they create personal constructs that serve as a basis for the
person's anticipation and predition of events.  My work in NLP
largely focuses on helping people build useful constructs that
support their chosen goals.  Kelly, as a personality theorist,
provides some interesting background on how this might work.

In closing, I urge NLPers to resist the seduction of the new agers
and help to convince more mainstream psychologists to at least 
accept NLP as a worthy field of inquiry.    
 
Paul Rousseau
PRAXIS Associates
543 Harbourne Cres.
St. Clair Beach, ON
N8N 3J5 Canada
From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:25:06 GMT
	<MURPHYG.92Sep10151045@peplinsk.Software.Mitel.COM>
	<1992Sep11.012206.8741@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: jpk@Ingres.COM's message of 11 Sep 92 01:22:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.012206.8741@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:

   Gary Murphy asks:
   > Perhaps Jon could tell us what he would require as a
   > measurement to conclusively relate the physiology to
   > the subjective experience?

   You're missing the point.

No, I think you missed the point.  If you actually look at the
(well-defined) words I used, there is no hint that I am questioning
these two sides are not, as you term them, "two different things", I am
merely inquiring about your criteria for showing they are two sides of
the same coin.  If, as you wrote ...

   The physiology is not the subjective experience.
   Of course we might expect them to have to do
   with each other.  But they remain two different
   things, and two different sorts of things.

Then we should be able to observe the two acting independently of each
other.  Do you have evidence of subjects 'dreaming' in the absense of
the correlated EEG &c?  Do you have evidence of the EEG patterns while a
subject maintains they are fully conscious?  If you recheck the lines of
my message prior to what you quoted, I believe I drew an analogy to
vision, saying the subjective experience of 'seeing' with all the
pre-processing of boundaries and the 'subjective' illusions of colour
and contrast as compared to the measurable activity of the visual cortex
and the retina.  Same is true of hearing Beethoven, smelling a flower,
touching a hot plate ...

   We're unlikely to specify the object of study, in
   a way that gets reproducible results, until we can
   use terms consistently.

And just as unlikely when we do not read those words the other has
actually written.  I ask again, Jon, what would you require from an
experiment to show these "two different things" are really the same
event seen from two different sides?  I've told you what I'd require to
separate them, so it is only fair ;-)

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
        "But what if there _were_ such things as past lives?"
    "Close your eyes.  Notice how dark it becomes. Open your eyes.
                          What do you see?"
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: Change, NLP, and science (was NLP)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:51:06 GMT

ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
>	IDEA: Let's enter into a discussion on how we can prove or disprove
>	that NLP/NAC works or doesn't work and let's get off this name
>	calling, second guessing, belief instilling, shot in the dark,
>	abusive, fearful discussion and get something started that can
>	be useful for both believers and disbelievers.

The problem is that the believers aren't willing to put forth the effort
to 'prove' their theses ('I know it is true, so why bother with this
academic trivia') and the researchers also aren't willing to put forth
the effort to test the theses of the NLPers ('That's not my field of
study.  That doesn't interest me.  If it *is* true, then I'm going to
have a difficult time with my collegues)  So, the scientists say that
the NLPers haven't provided any evidence, and the NLPers say that the
scientists aren't willing to do the type of controlled studies that
would prove their claim.  They are both right.

As a scientist (currently of grad student status), I wouldn't research
NLP even if I thought it was true.  Of course, there are *hundreds* of
things I don't research, while not disbelieving them.  So I am just as
guilty as anybody else.  Of course, if some NLPer would like to propose
a 250,000 grant to do some clinical trials, I might find some interest
in the topic (-:  This is not actually true, but there is probably
*somebody* who would be willing to research NLP if they were given the
appropriate funds. :-)

Frank Fujita
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP, Smithsonian delirium
Date: 10 Sep 1992 22:14:34 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>"20th Century psychologists believed that there was a spiritual relation
>between the foot print and the mind.  Artifacts discovered show that
>these early psychologists felt that by walking on annointed pieces of
>paper, sometimes referred to as "squares" (see pythagorean claims of psycho-
>geometrical implications for objects), people were able to mind meld and
>occasionally cure phobias in minutes.  Honest."

"Because these claims were generally viewed as preposterous, they
received little serious attention for over three decades.  By early
in the 21st century, however, the incidence of these `treatments'
being reported, by patients, as having beneficial results became
so high that serious Scientific Study was initiated.  The 20th
century designers of the treatments had discovered a number of
useful models and effective techniques, but had not formed any
formal scientific theory to explain why they worked."

"We now know, of course, a great deal more about the mechanisms by
which these sometimes rather strange rituals are able to effect
changes in the thinking and behavior of individuals treated by them.
Indeed, our current theories, particularly Metaphor Theory (1) are
able to explain a great deal about why more traditional psycho-
thereputic models and techniques worked, even though their theories
sometimes seemed to contradict each other."

"Briefly, Metaphor Theory explains how deep cognitive models can
be represented and manipulated using conscious, metaphorical models.
A subject (or his therepist) identifies a (possibly nonconscious)
cognitive model that he wishes to change.  He then builds an
association between that internal model and some other metaphorical
model that he is already able to manipulate.  (Often the metaphorical
model is some contrived manipulation of physical objects.)  Once
the association between the two models has been established in the
subject's mind, he then makes the desired change to his internal
model by making the analogous change in his metaphorical model.
The mechanism by which the mind translates the changes made to the
metaphorical model back into the internal model is not yet fully
understood."

"(1) Fritz, Dubaldi K. "The Structure and Editing of Cognitive
     Entities", MIT Press, June 2017"
-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:30:15 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <lavk95INN5l5@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>I noticed some people critiquing NLP as not being scientific.
>This leads me to ask what has psychology proven with scientific rigor?
>After you remove advances in genetics, biology, and chemistry, which
>aren't under the province of psychology, how has psychology advanced
>science?

A very good question - appropriate to this group.
First, let me say that science is a double-meaning word.  It applies both
to the set of findings that have been confirmed by that science.  And it
applies to the set of procedures which are taken as means of studying
(or as you might say, but most scientists would not, of "proving") a
phenomenon.

I believe that you artificially sliced away some of what constitutes
psychology, although these areas are also covered by other sciences.
Nonetheless, psychologists who study perception, for example, might
study the biochemistry of vision (you excluded that) as well as
behavioral effects (you did not exclude that) in order to fully
understand the phenomenon.  Psychopharmacology is an area that overlaps
with other areas that you might consider to be outside the province of
psychology.

In any event, the reason that I am dismayed with NLP is that there are
established ways to study some of their claims.  And these methods are
scientific in that they take steps to rule out alternative conclusions
(other than NLP does such and such).  For example, there is a well documented
placebo effect, in which if you truly believe that this potion or procedure
will solve your problem, it is more likely to do so.  There are ways to
eliminate this effect.  No amount of personal anecdotes can supplant the
scientific approach for dealing with these sorts of extraneous effects.
You need well controlled situations to study claims like "NLP cures
phobias quickly and the effects are permanent".

Lee Lady, in particular, is resistant to any approach like I am suggesting.
He writes frequently about how this or that works.  To tell you the truth,
I think some of these things may work, but I won't just accept a given
practitioner of NLP as my evidence that it does.  And that is why I said
this stuff doesn't belong (to the extent that it has been discussed) on
sci.psychology, because it is more heresay than science.  Suppose I said
I have a new drug that prevents AIDS.  I know it works cause I used it and
I don't have AIDS.  Would you just accept that as scientific evidence?
I hope not.  So why accept some person(s) personal claims about NLP.
I am suspicious of the claims because of the resistance of NLP posters
to offer anything like scientific data on the topic.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Meyers-Briggs Personality/Temperament Types
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:39:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Hello,

I've been very interested in the Meyers-Briggs "system" for classifying
personality/temperament types, and have studied it closely for the last
few months.

I would like to get feedback and discussion concerning Meyers-Briggs, both
pro and con.  Overall, how does the psychological community view Meyers-Briggs,
or is the psychological community divided on its accuracy, approach, and
applicability?

I look forward to comments.

Jon Noring  (an "INFJ")


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Distribution: na
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:22:06 GMT

Gary Murphy asks:
> Perhaps Jon could tell us what he would require as a
> measurement to conclusively relate the physiology to
> the subjective experience?

You're missing the point.

The physiology is not the subjective experience.
Of course we might expect them to have to do
with each other.  But they remain two different
things, and two different sorts of things.

We're unlikely to make much progress in acquiring
reliable knowledge about either, both, or how
they relate to each other, until we can agree that
they are different things.

We're unlikely to specify the object of study, in
a way that gets reproducible results, until we can
use terms consistently.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:51:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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

I'm glad you just informed me that I'm not a psychologist.  I'll be sure
to let the rest of my department in on this new knowledge.  Sheesh!  Why
does all of academia have to be artificially compartmentalized?




[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Belief and Doubt in Therapy (was Re: Fast Anxiety Cure)
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:11:21 GMT

Gary Murphy writes:
> Criticisms levied against NLP for being non-science are as appropriate
> for any therapy: we cannot isolate the technique from the practitioner
> or the condition from the client.

"Therapy" was taken from the medical model.  It means a treatment
of known value for a given medical problem.  E.g. "existing therapies
for warts" refers to the set of treatments currently known to remove
or reduce warts.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Change, NLP, and science (was NLP)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:45:50 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1541@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
roussea@server.uwindsor.ca (ROUSSEAU PAUL            ) writes:
>>I've just begun to monitor sci.psychology tonight.  I'm a master
>practitioner in NLP and I've very pleased that people like Don Steiny
>are around trying to make progress in the ongoing fight between NLP and
>mainline psychology.

Paul,

I wonder about the accuracy of repeated NLPer's claims about some "war"
between NLP and mainline psychology.  I am a psychologist - not a clinical
psychologist, in fact I have a good deal of disrespect for many attitudes
in clinical psychology.  What I have posted about NLP applies to all
phenomena: when you make a claim of some effect, please provide evidence.
That is no indication of a "war" between A and B.  It is an indication
that science requires more than hearsay and anecdotes.

I think if NLPers are sincere about getting mainstream psychologists to
accept their work, and so on, they would be better advised to conduct
impartial studies and post the results.  A lot of what I've seen about NLP is
right out of intro psychology books under different names.  But claims about
instant "cures" for phobias. . . well, it does alert the skeptical side of
a scientist.  Calling this a "war" is a bit histrionic, don't you think?
I doubt if too many psychologists have even heard of NLP, let alone spend
much if any time thinking about it.  My experience with it is totally
from net postings, and I must say, the posters are less than convincing.
In fact, they tend to attack people who simply ask fro proof beyond anecdote.

This "war" is in your mind.  Does NLP have a quick cure for paranoia?  :^)
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: NLP, Smithsonian delirium
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:27:35 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

First a series of posts about a sign at the Smithsonian which tells people
to walk only on the black squares.  Then an anecdote (what else?) from Lee
Lady about Tim and Suzi's version of "Twister" that they do in airports
by laying out pieces of paper in a circle, with each piece labelled with
stuff like "current belief", "museum of old beliefs", and so on.
I'm starting to see a trend.  Extrapolating to the Smithsonian of the Future:

"20th Century psychologists believed that there was a spiritual relation
between the foot print and the mind.  Artifacts discovered show that
these early psychologists felt that by walking on annointed pieces of
paper, sometimes referred to as "squares" (see pythagorean claims of psycho-
geometrical implications for objects), people were able to mind meld and
occasionally cure phobias in minutes.  Honest."

It is no wonder that psychology gets a bad name, when these pseudoscientists
claim to prove something, then dismiss honest inquiry as "just your view
of science."  Too bad they don't have a quick cure for charlatanism.

Can we return to science.psychology (get it? science as applied to
psychology; not heresay.psychology)?