text:
by Kevin MacDonald

The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
display of Jewish power and influence. People who are very strongly
identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and
military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli
lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in
the defense and foreign policy establishment. These same people, as
well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the
most prestigious media outlets in the United States. People who
criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional
abuse.

Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is
the surreal fact that in this entire discourse Jewish identity is not
mentioned. When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin,
William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent
media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or
opine on the Fox News Network, there is never any mention that they
are Jewish Americans who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank; is on
the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper; maintains close
personal ties with prominent Israelis, especially those associated
with the Likud Party; has worked for an Israeli defense company; and,
according to credible reports, was discovered by the FBI passing
classified information to Israel - when, despite all of this, he is a
central figure in the network of those pushing for wars to rearrange
the entire politics of the Middle East in Israel's favor, and with
nary a soul having the courage to mention the obvious overriding
Jewish loyalty apparent in Perle's actions, that is indeed a
breathtaking display of power.

One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to
maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven
years, despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal
suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories - an
occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete
subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During the same period Jewish
organizations in America have been a principal force - in my view the
main force - for transforming America into a state dedicated to
suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging
massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a
legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to
the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities - the
culture of the Holocaust.  All this is done without a whisper of
double standards in the aboveground media...

http://www.ihr.org/     http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com


author: Gasometro

subject: Does t-BuLi react with N2?

text:
Hi.  I was running a reaction syringing in t-BuLi under Ar.  I ran out of
Ar, and replaced it with N2.  After a few seconds, I noticed that an
off-white solid started forming in the tip of the needle.
Then, I remember a professor at the University of Buenos Aires who used to
state that t-BuLi is so reactive that it reacts with N2.  Any hard fact
supporting this statement?

Just curious....

Dari

PS: Both the Ar and the N2 were being dried by passing through a drierite
tower, so I rule out hydrolysis to LiOH. (No pptate seen with Ar.)
Chechi & Dari Doller
[email]


author: Jeff Harlan

subject: Re: Does t-BuLi react with N2?

text:
In article <3ftusm$[email]>, [email]
(Gasometro) wrote:

No, under those conditions t-bu Li does not react with N2.  what is
probably happening is that the pentane (or hexane) is evaporating and some
of the solid white (t-bu)Li is forming on the needle.  I wouldn't worry
about this too much.
Jeff


author: PartDragon

subject: Re: Does t-BuLi react with N2?

text:
I have never seen nor heard evidence that tBuLi reacts with N2.  The while
tsolid you saw on the end of the needle was solid tBuLi (after the solvent
evaporated), or perhaps LiOH from raction of tBuLi with residual water in
your inert gas.


author: Jeanne Sirovatka

subject: Re: Does t-BuLi react with N2?

text:
PartDragon ([email]) wrote:
: I have never seen nor heard evidence that tBuLi reacts with N2.  The while
: tsolid you saw on the end of the needle was solid tBuLi (after the solvent
: evaporated), or perhaps LiOH from raction of tBuLi with residual water in
: your inert gas.

In fact, Aldrich packs t-butyl lithium under nitrogen, so I think there
shouldn't be a problem with any reaction.
---------------------------------------------
---Jeanne M. Sirovatka                    ---
---2LT, USAR CM                           ---
---Chemistry Dept., Colorado State U.     ---
[email]             ---
---------------------------------------------


author: Bobby G

subject: Re: TRIGLYCERIDE QUESTION ?

text:
This is completely unbelievable that you would need a stress test to rule
out CAD at age 47, with a reading of 230 as your only risk factors.

Likely your doctor has an arrangement with the stress test people to keep
those government/insurance dollars moving!

And let's not forget the dollars flowing into all the drugcos that produce
statin drugs!

Bobby

"kpfalconer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

subject: Re: TRIGLYCERIDE QUESTION ?

text:
Bobby G wrote:

Hold a sec...  you don't know the entire history and physical exam.  His
EKG may have been grossly abnormal for instance.


author: kpfalconer

subject: Re: TRIGLYCERIDE QUESTION ?

text:
Bobby,

I am aware that at times a facility may " make use" of their equipment
to keep the dollars coming in. I did feel as if my health may not have
necessitated this test but this is one case where I would prefer to
have
one too many tests than one too few ! I appreciate what your saying
though...

Kevin


subject: Re: TRIGLYCERIDE QUESTION ?

text:
Actually no, he did mention though the beat was a little "muttled" ?
Although with severe heart attacks being fatal and a bypas at...what..
about 40,000 I dont thing a 1800.00 stress test is to outrageous.

Kevin


author: Vaughan Sanders

subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
"Larry Swain" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

snip

Yep, also note.
"They are not the accounts of eye-witnesses, but written records of oral
traditions - stories and information about exceptional voyages
undertaken more than 200 years earlier."

Btw, I haven't nailed my colours to the mast on Newfoundland being Adams
Vinland.
All I will say is, "if Leif missed Greenland because of poor visibility,
Biarni Heriulfsson was rescued somewhere near L'Anse aux Meadows"
Navigation Larry dear boy, navigation :-))

Incidentally I noticed you didn't respond to my question on "Provintia
Danorum "?.
Presumably if Adam meant the geography of Denmark, then when he says
*Insular*,
("Praeterea unam adhuc *insulam* recitavit a multis in eo repertam
occeano, quae dicitur Winland, eo quod ibi vites sponte nascantur, vinum
optimum ferentes. Nam et fruges ibi non seminatas habundare, non
fabulosa opinione, sed certa comperimus relatione Danorum. [Post quam
insulam, ait, terra non invenitur habitabilis in illo occeano, sed omnia
quae ultra sunt glacie intolerabili ac caligine inmensa plena sunt.
Cuius rei Marcianus ita meminit: 'Ultra Thilen', inquiens, 'navigatione
unius diei mare concretum est'. Temptavit hoc nuper experientissimus
Nordmannorum princeps Haraldus. Qui latitudinem septentrionalis occeani
perscrutatus navibus, tandem caligantibus ante ora deficientis mundi
finibus inmane abyssi baratrum retroactis vestigiis pene vix salvus
evasit.)

he meant *island* wouldn't you agree ?

Jamie


author: Larry Swain

subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
Vaughan Sanders wrote:

Where did I claim otherwise?

Uh huh....I refer you back to  your own posts of 10/11.  There's nothing
to indicate there that you are unsure of Newfoundland not being Vinland.

*yawn* how you do go on......

I notice you haven't answered several of my questions.  Turn about is
fair play.

Wow, wow, wow....still missing the point.......


subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
"Larry Swain" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I think it is still favourite because of the archaeology, but I wouldn't
rule out Prince Edward Island.
The sagas mention only one settlement beyond Greenland.

Well ponder this before you nod off.
Biarni was very likely describing the coast of Cape Breton or more
likely the south coast of Newfoundland as his first sighting, then the
west coast of Newfoundland for the second sighting.
"Nor did they lower their sail, but held their course off the land, and
saw that it was an island"
The Sun was their only means of navigation.
"Then they saw the sun again, and were able to determine the quarters of
the heavens; they hoisted sail, and sailed that "doegr" through before
they saw land"

Perhaps at this point we should have a recap on the point so to speak.

You claimed, "no 15th century cartographer could have known Vinland was
an Island".

My pointing out Adam of Bremen quite clearly calls Vinland an island
seemed to come as a shock to you, also my pointing out Adam was clearly
well known and thought of in this period was a bit of a blow.
Since then you have been turning cartwheels to try to rubbish Adam, even
attempting to gerrymander his text, yet you are quite happy to accept a
saga written down 200 years after the event as completely correct in all
details when it suits you.

The only point I am missing is your Mickey Mouse logic.

Jamie


subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
Vaughan Sanders wrote:

The archaeology actually rather argues against it being Vinland, since
the archaeology shows that the goods (butternuts, vines of grapes,
teeming salmon) were not present on Newfoundland, but had to come from
further south, at the gulf of the St. Lawrence.  Newfoundland MAY have
been included in the designation (though probably not), but can not be
limited to it since the Norse would not have found there what they said
they found and so creating the name Vinland.

  but I wouldn't

But this isn't a settlement, its an encampment, and is considered to be
a base camp for operations, not a permanent fixture on the landscape.

Perhaps, but then Bjarni didn't put ashore and give us a good
description, did he?  And there is also insufficient identification
between Bjarni's island and Leif's Vinland to say that the two are one
and the same.

No, actually I claimed no such thing.  I claimed, because it is fact,
that no 15th century cartographer would have known that Greenland was an
island.  Yes, Jamie, Greenland.

Um, no.  It was I in this thread who pointed that out to you when I
asked you on Oct 8 whether Adam's designation of Vinland as an island
seemed correct to you. (And that Hines is the fall of two prats, but
don't suppose you'll point out either Jamie's error or your own on this
one, eh?)  And Soren mentioned it before that in connection with
Greenland and other things.   I think in the current threads you were
the first to mention Adam and Greenland being an island on Oct 1.  As to
whether it was "a shock" to me, it might shock you to know that George
Painter pointed this out in VMTR-95, which I read when it came it out.
You can come on over and I'll show you the book on my shelf.  You might
also be interested in looking at the list archives and discovering that
the topic has been covered once or twice before.  I know you need the
ego stroke of thinking you "got" me, but oh well, try again next time,
won't you?

  also my pointing out Adam was clearly

No, sorry.  I realize that you think everyone is as ignorant as you are,
but some of us do actually know that Adam was read in certain circles.

Nope.  I realize again that your head is up your butt, but if you
understood the point I was making, it would be very clear that in this
instance my point has nothing to do with "rubbishing" or discrediting
Adam.

  even

You were asked to show where my ellipsis of the text in any changed the
meaning of what I said.  Since you've yet to understand the point, it is
no surprise that you think it does.

  yet you are quite happy to accept a

Nope.  But stating this illustrates again how badly you've misunderstood
what is going on and what's been said.

Ah, an insult war is about to begin.  Shall I just point again to your
Breton fiasco?  (Hey, Jamie, btw, you might be interested to know that
Brittany, like all areas of France, are REQUIRED BY THE FRENCH
CONSTITUTION to teach and display FRENCH in all public places and
publicly funded buildings, activities etc, and that even in Brittany not
everyone speaks Breton, but French, and that is by law taught in the
schools.  Don't believe me Moronspawn?  Go check out the Breton govt's
own web page!!)  Or shall I point again to your Wynflaed pile of poo?
Those are insult enough for anyone.


subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
"Larry Swain" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

My mistake Larry, Greenland

My mistake again, Greenland

So you hadn't read Adam of Bremen prior to 95? .. presumably you have
read Adam now Larry?

Of course you did Larry :-))

<Larry>
"Adam of Bremen says Jutland is surrounded by water on four sides,
clearly he thought it an island".
</Larry>

Then you snipped the part of his text where he says, "the source of the
Eider river is in northern Holstein"

Hmmm Larry, the Bretons are Celts whatever the Frog government says, my
daughter lived there for awhile, La Foret-Fouesnant near Concarneau.
The French Constitution is more Napoleon than William the Conqueror btw
Larry, the present Constitution (fifth) is 1958, so your point on 11th
century Brittany is exactly what?
Granpappy who was Welsh speaking could converse with the Breton onion
sellers who used to come over on the fishing boats and lodge at his
house, he didn't speak French other than what he picked up from the
trenches of WW1
http://www.arbedkeltiek.com/saozneg/books/johnny_onions.htm.

Jamie


subject: Re: Medieval Greenland icefree island?

text:
Vaughan Sanders wrote:

Yes, I had, but hadn't really taken note that he calls Greenland or
Vinland an island, thinking other things he says more important.  Have
you read Adam?  Have you understood him?

Yes Jamie, of course I did.  This is after all my field.  You can
disbelieve it if you want, you're opinion really doesn't matter much.

Now here I thought that selectively snipping posts was a no-no, but here
you are doing just that.  Doesn't that fit your definition of
gerrymandering and sneaky?  Seems you want to distract us by accusing me
while you off with your left hand and commit the crime yourself.

Here is what I wrote:
Um, yes he does.  1) he includes his discussion of Norway and Sweden
under the title "Description of the Islands of the North", and he
doesn't specify otherwise and 2) for example he notes at the beginning
of the description that the country of the Danes is almost entirely on
islands, then proceeds a few lines below to describe Jutland extending
from the Eider to the north.  While he makes no explicit statement that
"Jutland is an island", his description here is of an island, bounded on
four sides by water and in context that 1) most of the territory of the
Danes is islands and 2) the greatest part of the territory of the Danes
is Jutland seems to indicate that he considers Jutland an island.

Now, let's look at what ol' Adam says: "But this Danish land (which he
had just named Jutland) is divided from our North Abiginians by the
river Eidar, which proceeds from the woodlands of the Isarnho which they
say extends from the ocean of the Barbarians as far as the Schlei Sea,
the Eidar descends into the Frisian Sea, which the Romans named (the
verb is scribo) the ocean of the Britains."  That's the part I elided.
Now just how Jamie does that invalidate anything I said.  It doesn't,
not a whit.  Adam still says that the southern border of Jutland begins
at the Eidar river, so it is bounded on the south by water.  He
describes the rest of the geography well, he knows then that if the
Eidar is the southern border of Jutland, and last I checked a river is
usually made up of water.

Yep, and so are the Welsh, but the Welsh speak English and Welsh.  Hmmm.
  Ethnicity and language are not related: language has everything to do
with who has power or the most influence.

  my

Well if she's telling you that the Bretons don't speak French, she's
lieing to you.

Let me remind you dolt that you claimed (and yes I can quote it and
refer you specifically to which message you claimed it in) that not only
did the Bretons not speak French in the 11th and 12th centuries, but
that they still don't.  Moron.

And that proves that the Breton onion sellers didn't exactly how?  So
Hungarians don't speak Hungarian because my Hungarian friends speak
English and French with me?  Huh, who knew?


author: Ingvar Bäckestrand

subject: eTrexes with T suffix?

text:
There seems to be a novelty coming up, "eTrex Vista T" and "eTrex Legend
T".
http://www.garmin.com.tw/whatsNew/index.html#pgo

But that webpage is in chinese.
On www.garmin.com there is an offer on the good old eTrexes for north
america.


author: rentagps

subject: Re: eTrexes with T suffix?

text:
Did an Alta Vista page translation and got below result:  Hmmm   Alta Vista
minus 10 for htis effort but I thought the bit about Melons was great.

Add to that there was a line further down which said ..."lucky as barium"
considering what they use barium for (as a meal to help x ray intestines)
then I guess its not a compliment.

:-))

eTrex Legend T?A?A receives eTrex?a the wall ? fierce s?@? gong vessel
Aï¿½N?xcï¿½W??gps ? braises ? ? s hangs ? umbrella G

  1.. Braises ??ï¿½t?m160 ? 288 hooks ? Yin principle ? ? stalk ?r?ï¿½fstn?g
hangs the roller ? saddle ? Alpha A ? ?H?i ? post Holland ? ?qï¿½l?a melon ?A
? ? twenty x?W?a postscripts ? ?qï¿½l?a melons ?A?a melon ? helium is cold eï¿½
? i? ] ï¿½t? ya ??b?d separates ?B?e?y?B ? ? " the good T?I list ?C
  2.. eTrex Legend T?H?b?z?ï¿½?A repeatedly ? ? t ? ?~? [ ? ] ?pc?A?r? ? ï¿½
accompanies ?X ? receives ?s?\? clatter contains ? X o ? ? C
?t?~?ALegend the T ? companion ?O Tau eTrex?a wall ?u earthen bowl ? shouts
? Tï¿½ ? ? the S ? ?Aï¿½ ? leaf qï¿½ ? knee one ? cD?a ? ? ? ? flutters w for ?
the bold ? health stern ? ?A often ?| picks up Tau ? ? ï¿½U? Qu ] ?I (Navaid)
?A ? ï¿½oeTrex Legend T Theta ? boils ? ? cB?ï¿½?b? turns the T acute hearing ?
" is wet ? shakes consoles ? ? C

? the ?eeTrex Legend bureau Tau ?^ ? ?? (eTrex Legend) ?P ? ? ?? (eTrex
Legend T) ?A?^ ? ? - Han the thirty ? _?ï¿½ ? ?n?ï¿½?w ? ?qï¿½l?a melon ?A ? ? ? ?
h ? ? twenty x?W?a postscripts ? ?qï¿½l?a melons ?A ? ? world W? little girl
disobeys \? whiz ? is long & P?C

?`?n1?g eTrex Legend T (? ? ??) ? ?A ? eTrex Legend (?^ ? ??) ? ?n ? ï¿½ midge
s & ï¿½U ?C
?`?n2?g ? ? MapSourceï¿½W stomach spear ? ? ? ? x? umbrella A calls ? ? to
correct " Map " ?\? oh A?Hï¿½KeTrex Legend T ? ? ? twenty x?W?a melons ?Q Luan
?\ rushes ?C


author: w a y p o i n t

subject: Re: eTrexes with T suffix?

text:
They're basically Taiwanese versions of the Lenged and Vista with even the
text in the user interface in chinese. And recently a patch was made
available in the taiwanese website to translate the text used in the UI to
english as well. The base maps contained in htese units are very detailed
and accurate. I've see one of the Vista units before in my frequent trips
there. Since its launch, I've asked if Garmin was going to come up with a
MapSource Taiwan, though customer service have claimed they haven't got
plans to do so.

Regards,
Collin, Singapore

"Ingvar Bï¿½ckestrand" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Meteorologist

subject:
Earliest Known Hebrew Inscription Bolsters Biblical Account of
	David's Kingdom

text:
http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2010/01/earliest-known-hebrew-inscription.html

A good read...

Most Ancient Hebrew Biblical Inscription Deciphered, Scholar Says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107183037.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA


author: SolomonW

subject: Re: Earliest Known Hebrew Inscription Bolsters Biblical Account of  David's Kingdom

text:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:54:46 -0800 (PST), Meteorologist wrote:

We have already discussed this, you are quite welcome to join in the
discussions in an earlier discussion.


author: Sir David

subject:
Re: Earliest Known Hebrew Inscription Bolsters Biblical Account of
	David's Kingdom

text:
On Jan 14, 5:07 am, SolomonW <[email]> wrote:

I think you mistake Crunchy Carl's intentions. He has no intention of
joining any discussion. Indeed, he is unable to join the discussion,
because he has no unerstanding of the issues, and he won't bother to
read the pages he links to. He likes to start dozens and dozens of new
threads on his little hobby topics, as part of his self-declared "war"
on usenet groups. He's really nothing more than a lying spamming
troll, and not even very good at that.

Sucks to be Carl.


text:
On Jan 14, 7:43 am, Sir David <[email]> wrote:

Liar.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA


author: JTEM

text:
SolomonW <[email]> wrote:

http://neilsilberman.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/hallelujah-or-caveat-emptor/


author: [redacted]

subject: SOUTH CHINA RESSOURCES PLC _ STERN WARNING TO SHAREHOLDERS_

text:
http://www.southchinaresources.com/Investor/Major_Shareholders/default.aspx?id=258
SOUTH CHINA RESSOURCES PLC

Sirs,

This is just to warn you that you are employing one of the greatest
Geological fraud alive in the world  : David Stuart Tyrwhitt, PhD
(geology) Bristol University .
That chap made all his career,  and built  up all his fame on the
pretension that he had found Australia largest Gold Deposit  Telfer
Mine .

That thief and financial criminal indeed who defrauded Narla & Day
Dawn shareholders of millions of dollars, indicates clearly how he
pretentiously made his alleged discovery in the immensity of the Great
Sandy Desert of Australia ::

"I SPOTTED THE SITE FROM THE AIR  AND LANDED NEAR BY IN THE DESERT TO
TAKE SAMPLES "

and this is written in "DESERT GOLD"   which is the official account
of Telfer Mine discovery by Newmont / Newcrest & BHP / Billiton Mining
Criminals, and that book was written by that said Tyrwhitt, who you
trust now unfortunately as a competent & most experienced geologist !
In the above short statement of that Mining Criminal you will find 2
lies in succession, and I leave it to you to find out these  2
impossibilities in succession indeed , which determine not only the
deviant mind of the Tyrwhitt Criminal but his total incompetence !

Further still Tyrwhitt, banding with Newmont Chairman Searls, is
guilty of corruption of many Members of the West Australian
Parliament, right up to the Premier (s) Burke and Court who were
bought to the tune of Millions of dollars to prevent a Royal Inquiry
into the Newmont / Newcrest & BHP / Billiton Mining Criminals'  Great
Sandy Desert Swindle of Narla & Day Dawn Shareholders of Billions of
Dollars ... in fact of their right ownership of the now so-called
Telfer Mine. That Royal Inquiry was required by the late Hon T.D
Evans, former WA Attorney General and Member for Kalgoorlie. At the
present time and according to Her Majesty 's standards the West
Australia Parliament stands any time to face charges of High
Corruption and Forfeiture from Her Majesty' s Services !!!

Please note incidentally that Tyrwhitt was a drawback to any company
that man went to, once fired by Newmont ( as him why ) , and
contributed to huge loss to some Diamonds exploration Company, whose
exploration that fraudulent  man became Exploration Manager.

I am sure, although Tyrwhitt does not mention it anymore on the
Internet, that he presented himself to your board on the pretence of
his Telfer Mine discovery. I am sure that Con man did, and this is the
main reason indeed why you hired him !  Correct ? Back in Australia
that Tyrwhitt chap is considered rightly for what he is, A FRAUD, and
no people want to have anything to do with that Prospectors Prospector
( worthy of the rope indeed ) Tyrwhitt is presently a shame to both
the whole Australia geologists community but as well to his Bristol
University .... and this is why he took his chance with unaware
Chinese decent & trusting people. Be certain that Tyrwhitt will take
advantage of any trust you may put in him and will take any advantage
of such and repay you in the best case with nothing, and in worse case
with immense losses of money, time & opportunity !

This is my duty, as Australia Greatest Mining Pioneer of all times,
with over 22 mineral discoveries in that country and 3 MINES ON THE
MAP OF AUSTRALIA,  to warn you against that sly & abject villain,  who
wherever he goes through spreads as a plague the miasmas of his evil
soul !

Yours faithfully

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert

Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Mobile +33 650 171 464
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~

for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm


author: E. H. Shepard

subject: How does the US do it?

text:
Greetings economists

Those of you that are hardcore economic debaters, please forgive this naive
question; though I have a no better than rudimentary understanding of
economics, I have braved to ask this question here in hopes of gaining some
insight.

I am wondering if there is a close relationship between the relative power
of the US economy compared to the rest of the world, and the increasing size
of the American lower class.

Essentially, I was wondering how America did it- if it is true that we are
the biggest consumer of our own products, and we are the most powerful
economy in the world, then essentially, aren't we for the most part feeding
off of ourselves, and if so, mustn't their necessarily come a time when
economic atrophy must begin to take over?

Your replies are much appreciated

- David


author: Jim Blair

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
"E. H. Shepard" <[email]> wrote:

....

Hi,

One problem with using meqningless and undefined terms like "class" as
applied to the US is that people reply with even more meaningless
undefined terms like "wage robot" and "wage slave".  Soon you have a
thread debating whether the middle class is composed of wage slaves or
wage robots.

If by "class" you mean "income quintile" in a given year, then say so.  If
you mean something else, say what it is.

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair ([email]) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call:   http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/8092


author: David F.Milleker

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
Am 23.06.02, 02:56:09, schrieb "E. H. Shepard" <[email]> zum
Thema How does the US do it?:

naive
some

power
size

are
feeding


author: Grinch

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:56:09 -0400, "E. H. Shepard"
<[email]> wrote:

What "increasing size of the American lower class"?  Define it.

And for the record, remember the US has to take in about a million
immigrants annually to keep its "lower class" as large as it is.

Exclude immigrants and the US "lower class" is a lot better off today
than it was a generation ago.  Of course, the immigrants are better
off too for being here, of they wouldn't come.

How would we be "feeding off ourselves"?  It's not like the poor
started out rich, and the middle class-and-above got rich by taking
away the wealth of the poor.

When an economy is working well it creates wealth broadly through
voluntary transaction that are mutually beneficial. Apparently the
immigrants at least think that the US economy is working better at the
"lower class" level in this regard the economies of other nations that
they've come from.


author: George Washington

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
In article <af369j$fbf$[email]>
"E. H. Shepard" <[email]> wrote:

Marketing.


author: Mason Clark

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:56:09 -0400, "E. H. Shepard" <[email]> wrote:

First of all, there are very few "economists" here on sci.econ.  They find
the environment uninviting, to put it mildly.

"...the increasing size of the American lower class" -- how do you define and
measure this size?  Are you wondering about the increasing work force?
If so, it is correct that the US economy has always been helped by the inflow
of workers.

"...biggest consumer of our own products"?  of course we are -- we export only
a small fraction of our production -- nothing remarkable about that.

No, "economic atrophy" needn't take over.  That is not to say that recessions
and even depressions won't occur.  With the rule of law, an educated
population, a large area with good natural resources, and not too many
right-wing neoliberal "conservatives", there's no reason we can't continue
indefinitely as a great economic power.

        Mason C          you asked, and deserve answers; anyone else?


subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:56:09 -0400, "E. H. Shepard"
<[email]> wrote:

No.

No.

-- Roy L


author: Doug Daly

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text: Or perhaps questions like "How many angels can dance on this pinhead?


author: David James Polewka

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
Grinch <[email]> wrote:

Technology Review (Jul/Aug '02) has an article on Ghana, which talks
about the Internet cafes in Accra.  4 of 5 users are there just to find
a way to get out of Ghana.

=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================


subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
Mason Clark <[email]> wrote:

No, they:
1. don't have the balls to be here.
2. are too busy reproducing the errors of their instructors.

=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================


author: Michael L. Coburn

subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
Mason Clark wrote:

The __*POWER*__ of the top 5% to 10% of the population as measured
in assest and in income has been growing relative to the rest of
the Americans.  The rest of the Americans would be called "the
lower class" because these are "lower" in power than the "upper"
class -- the aristocracy --
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/aristocracy.php
And The Economy of the United States quit being "helped" by the
inflow of more wage robots about 20 years ago.

We MUST stop importing wage robots from Mexico while we endeavor
to educate the ones we have so they are NOT robots.  These folks
need to be employed in factories HERE in the USA, and H1B's sure
as hell aren't the answer to ANYTHING.  We CAN absorb more people,
but the question is WHY?  We are not providing sufficiently for
the people already here.  There should be NO unemployment.  If
people are not suited to the work that needs to be done then
we should have plenty of jobs in the business of teaching them.


subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
The economy keeps expanding as long as productivity improves.  We had
a big bump with women in the workforce, more of the workforce in their
'most productive' ages, and other reasons.  Lower unemployment also
helps, unless if it is so low as to allow accelerating inflation.

The increasing lower class and shrinking of the middle is IMHO more of
a ticking time-bomb rather than something that is hurting our
productivity.  (It sucks, but we haven't suffered yet.)

There's a common misconception of thinking of a country like a
business.  This is false -- you can't imagine a company that consumes
over 90% of what it produces, right?  Trade is helpful, but not always
necessary for a productive economy.

  (* snipping *)
Amen!
I'm used to the term "wage slave", but "wage robot" is just all that
more demeaning.  Both of these claims tie to current political
short-term thinking and answering to your biggest contributors.  In
"robot" example, we're just artificially depressing the price of work
for the unskilled, and in the H1B case, we're doing the same to the
highly skilled.  Now in rules of trade, it's a good idea to import
cheaper stuff than buying more expensive domestic goods (presuming
equal quality, etc.).  A country that can import some things more
cheaply can focus on producing other things they are much more
efficient at making.

However, when it comes to people, this rule doesn't apply.  People
only have one commodity, their labor.  Now savvy unskilled people may
see the writing on the wall, and decide to try to improve their
skills.  Unfortunately, this is very difficult because 1) they're
already stuck in a low-wage trap which takes all of their time (60+
hours), and 2) People like W. decide to cut funding for job training
programs so that zillionaires don't have to worry about their estate
being taxed.  (Funny that a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt came up with
the estate tax seeing the gross separation between haves and
have-nots.)  For H1B's the highly skilled also are trapped, just less
painfully so.  Can you expect a mid or late-career engineer seeing all
the cheap H1B labor coming in and saying, "Ya know, I'm going to leave
my good but artificially low income to go back to school for a few
years, then spend several more to get that new career going, and
then...".  That's silly.  Clearly that is something not open to
everybody.

I take exception to the term "providing for".  If we either doubled
the minimum wage, or actually enforced our illegal alien laws, we are
not "providing better" for our people but simply assuring they are
paid what they're worth.

That's my rant.

Doug


subject: Re: How does the US do it?

text:
The economy keeps expanding as long as productivity improves.  We had
a big bump with women in the workforce, more of the workforce in their
'most productive' ages, and other reasons.  Lower unemployment also
helps, unless if it is so low as to allow accelerating inflation.

The increasing lower class and shrinking of the middle is IMHO more of
a ticking time-bomb rather than something that is hurting our
productivity.  (It sucks, but we haven't suffered yet.)

There's a common misconception of thinking of a country like a
business.  This is false -- you can't imagine a company that consumes
over 90% of what it produces, right?  Trade is helpful, but not always
necessary for a productive economy.

  (* snipping *)
Amen!
I'm used to the term "wage slave", but "wage robot" is just all that
more demeaning.  Both of these claims tie to current political
short-term thinking and answering to your biggest contributors.  In
"robot" example, we're just artificially depressing the price of work
for the unskilled, and in the H1B case, we're doing the same to the
highly skilled.  Now in rules of trade, it's a good idea to import
cheaper stuff than buying more expensive domestic goods (presuming
equal quality, etc.).  A country that can import some things more
cheaply can focus on producing other things they are much more
efficient at making.

However, when it comes to people, this rule doesn't apply.  People
only have one commodity, their labor.  Now savvy unskilled people may
see the writing on the wall, and decide to try to improve their
skills.  Unfortunately, this is very difficult because 1) they're
already stuck in a low-wage trap which takes all of their time (60+
hours), and 2) People like W. decide to cut funding for job training
programs so that zillionaires don't have to worry about their estate
being taxed.  (Funny that a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt came up with
the estate tax seeing the gross separation between haves and
have-nots.)  For H1B's the highly skilled also are trapped, just less
painfully so.  Can you expect a mid or late-career engineer seeing all
the cheap H1B labor coming in and saying, "Ya know, I'm going to leave
my good but artificially low income to go back to school for a few
years, then spend several more to get that new career going, and
then...".  That's silly.  Clearly that is something not open to
everybody.

I take exception to the term "providing for".  If we either doubled
the minimum wage, or actually enforced our illegal alien laws, we are
not "providing better" for our people but simply assuring they are
paid what they're worth.  This is more an issue of fairness rather
than benevolence.

That's my rant.

Doug


author: bob dick

subject: Psychology and nlp

text:
I've been following, off and on, the debates about NLP.  From
time to time I've been tempted to take part.  But most of the
postings seemed to be from people whose mind was well and truly
made up.  So there didn't seem much point, somehow.

I don't know what's changed.  Perhaps it's the season.(And
I haven't been drinking.  Really I haven't.)

Anyway...

I'm not an NLP practitioner myself.  I've worked closely with a
couple of people who are.  And at their best they do some
spectacular things.

I can understand why Bandler and Grinder called their original
two-volume work "The structure of magic".  To judge from what
my colleagues can sometimes accomplish, the people studied by
B&G may have been awesome.

Yet there is so much opposition from psychology.

I must say this doesn't surprise me.  I did a straight
experimental psych undergraduate degree.  And my honours and
masters theses were laboratory experimental in style.
Psycholinguistics.  I was taught a lot of opinion disguised as
fact.

By accident I became an applied psychologist, doing work in
organisational and community change.  I found that, to achieve
the outcomes I was paid for, I couldn't make much use of what
I'd learned in my undergraduate program.

That's why, these days, the research methodology I use is
action research, not experimental research.  It allows me to
research what I'm doing, and still develop my understanding as
I go.  But that's another story.

I watch my NLP colleagues working.  At the heart of what they
do lie a number of assumptions -- assumptions that (I believe)
explain the difficulty of taking much of NLP into the
laboratory.

They assume that each person is different.  So what they read
in the manuals has to be adjusted, on the run, to suit the
person they are working with.

They assume that you don't expect something to work on the
first try.  So they just keep trying different approaches, in
an informed manner.  Eventually they find something that does
work.  Better to try something at random, even, than continue
with something that hasn't worked.

As it happens, I don't believe NLP is primarily a coherent body
of techniques.  I think it's more of a process model.  Or, you
could say, it's more about education.  You find out what the
client does well;  and you help them learn to apply their
skills and resources to what troubles them.

Yes, there are also lots of specific techniques.  They are a
sort of grab-bag of what Bandler and Grinder learned from
Erickson, Satir, Perls, and others, and what NLPers have since
found out for themselves.

But they are only part of it.  The process understanding, and
the willingness to be flexible, seem to be what count.  My
colleagues use informed trial and error until they are
successful.

Doesn't lend itself to experimentation in a controlled way,
does it.  Not using conventional experimental method, in any
event.

I could fairly easily take off on a tangent at this point, and
complain about how ideologically-driven psychology is.  But,
the season notwithstanding, I won't.

I'll content myself by concluding with a few remarks about
psychological research.  Until psychology is willing to add
alternative research methodologies to its repertoire I don't
think that psychological practitioners will be as well served
as they might.

Research, as they are taught it, is just too hard.  So (as we
know from other research) most of them abandon it.

What a pity they aren't taught methodologies that they can
integrate more easily with their practice.  What a pity they
are taught to be sceptical only about those phenomena that lie
beyond the current wisdom.

In the long run, perhaps it doesn't matter.  The behaviour of
individuals and groups and organisations and communities is too
important to be neglected.  If the discipline of psychology
doesn't find some ways of understanding it more adequately,
other folk will.

Perhaps, less hampered by ideology, they will do a better job.

    --  Bob


author: Rollin Denniston

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Bob Dick had this to say:

Bob:
Would you be willing to do so with a little encouragement? We hear of course
from none other than the ivory tower group how ideological NLP is and they
don't even take the season into consideration.

BTW, I enjoyed your excellent description of the double-bind tthat those who
pursue the art of therapy through formal academic training must face; that, of
course being, don't use anything that isn't proven to work and nothing that is
proven to work really works. Like you said (sort of) psychologists need
alternative epistemologies if they are going to move ahead into higher levels
of efficacy in the next millenium.

Rollin Denniston
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| The Institute of Mind Sciences |
| Minneapolis, MN		 |
| (612)-377-7771		 |
| [email]	 |
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+


author: Warren Harrison

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
bob dick ([email]) wrote:
<SNIP SNIP>
<SNIP SNIP>

My goodness... a fellow traveller!

I, too, completed a strongly experimental first degree and find myself
working with real people (rather than rats) now after doing a very
satisfying Masters in Ed Psych.

The problem I have is that I still have an interest in the research side
of the profession (so much so that I'm actually about to do the silly thing
and start Ph.D. work... good grief... what a fool!).

Wanting to have one foot in each camp - research and applied - can be
very confusing because all those very neat research methods that worked
so well with rats and first-year students don't seem at all helpful in
the real world.

<SNIP SNIP>

I'd like to hear more of this "other story".... I'm also wondering if any
other participants in this group have a similarly split professional
personality and have found a way to combine the two parts?


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In an unguarded moment, in a post on psychology and NLP, I said
in passing:

Rollin Denniston <[email]> responded in part
as follows    [ I've reformatted to shorten lines ]

In retrospect I wish I'd phrased it a bit more diplomatically.
I'd prefer this to be informed discussion, not bar-room
brawling.

However, there _are_ some issues about ideology.  And I think
it may be useful to discuss them.

Let me say, by way of apology, that I think all disciplines
have their ideology.  So perhaps that's unavoidable.  What
makes them dangerous is that they are often not acknowledged.
So people trained in psychology can dismiss NLP as
ideologically-driven.  They don't always seem to realise their
own ideological biases.

(Yes, I have a few prejudices of my own.  No doubt they will
become apparent as we proceed.)

In my view, the particular piece of ideology which does the
most damage, is the "scientist-practitioner model".  This label
describes a belief that practitioners must be scientists first.

At a general enough level, I don't have difficulties about
this.  If "science" is sceptical empiricism, that strikes me as
a good thing.  (Perhaps I should capitalise that.)  Personally,
I think its important that practitioners are open to evidence
(the empiricism).  And the scepticism:  I think it's important
they remember that theories are just that -- theories.  To
borrow a phrase from the NLPers (after all, they borrowed it
from the general semanticists) the map is not the territory.

The problem occurs when this belief is converted into action.
Science then is taken to be experimental science -- or, if that
isn't feasible, quasi-experimental.  Psychology, alone of the
social sciences, has defined research very narrowly indeed.

There is evidence that a majority of psychological
practitioners don't read refereed journals, let alone publish
their own research in them.  (I can provide references if
necessary.)

I would conclude from this that the current version of the
scientist-practitioner model isn't working well.

The ideological overtones become more apparent when you compare
the behaviour of practitioners and their educators.  Academics
in psychology insist on experimental demonstration of
techniques.  They, and some of their trainees, say that one
must only use techniques whose effectiveness has been
adequately proven.

They want practitioners to be aware of the presumed theoretical
underpinnings of what they do.

I think there are very good reasons why this isn't always
feasible.  And I may address them in another post.  But my
interest now is in drawing attention to the ideological
component in psychological education.

Ask yourself this:  how many academics practise what they
preach in this regard?  How many of them are familiar with the
theoretical basis of _their own_ practice in the laboratory and
classroom?  How many are familiar with the relevant philosophy
of science, and with the relevant literature on educating
adults and practitioners?

I don't know if _that_ research has been done.  But I could
guess at the results.

And fair enough.  Academics can't wait for the philosophers to
make up their mind.  They get on with their job.  And the
literature on learning is large and messy.  They could spend
all their time reading it, and not get around to doing anything
with it.

Well, that's what practitioners do too.

I find it interesting that many academics are sensitive to
practitioners' ignorance, and relatively insensitive to their
own.

Now, I've got nothing against practitioners understanding what
they are doing.  That's what I try to achieve in my own
practice.  That's what I try to help practitioners do, in my
role as educator.

But, as educator, I try to remember my other job as a
practitioner.  I try to bear in mind that a typical intervention
may draw on very many concepts and processes.  More than I could
research, using experimental methods, in a lifetime.

It seems to me that consultancy is, at least in part, a
performing art.  I suspect that that is true of most
psychological practice.

    --  Bob


author: Dan Reed

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Even though, as psychologists, we do not take the hypocratic oath and
promise to do no harm, it seems that we should ethicaly abide by this.
How then can you be certain you are doing no harm without knowing about
or caring about the research on the treatment you provide to vulnerable
patients.  We are doctors not witch doctors.  A treatment doesn't work
because we think it works, or would very much like it to work.  It works
if it is proven to work.  How else do you find out for what specific
problems it works.  Please don't suggest that NLP works for everything.
I keep hearing that sort of nonsense from the proponents of EMDR.

Hope not to be flaming,

Aloha

***
Dan & Allyson Reed	[email]	Honolulu, Hawaii
***


subject: Action research (was: Psychology and nlp)

text:
Me (in a post on psychology and NLP):

Warren Harrison <[email]>:

I think it's difficult to defend any research paradigm to
someone who works within a different one.  So this won't be
persuasive to a rabid experimentalist.  However, some
practitioners may find it useful.

For me, here is the starting point:  Most psychological
practitioners are taught, as students, that there is _a_
scientific method.  And they believe it.

Then they become practitioners.  And they find it is difficult
to apply experimental research methods to their work.  There is
just too much happening.  There are too many variables.  They
often don't know enough to formulate a precise enough research
question.

Research would often be another full-time job on top of the one
they already have.

So they give up.  They don't do much research at all.  Some of
them don't do any.  Some don't even read research.

My interest is in using methods which can be combined with good
practice -- methods that don't require another full time job.
I depend upon flexibility for my effectiveness as a
practitioner.  I need methods which allow this flexibility and
yet provide enough rigour.

One of the features of much of my work is that often I don't
know enough, at the beginning, to be certain where to start.
So I need a process which allows me to start in the wrong
place, so to say, and still get where I need to get.

I've found that action research is one way of achieving this.

The essence of it is to use a cyclic process.  Start with a
rough question or goal, and a rough process for answering or
achieving it.  Then use the answers to refine the question or
goal, and the process for getting there.

Or, to put it differently.  Decide what you want to achieve
with the next step.  Decide the best step, as far as you can
tell, for achieving it.  Carry it out.  Check if you got what
you wanted.  (And check that, now that you've got it, you still
want it.)  If so, proceed.  If not, try something different.

The difficult bit is in achieving adequate rigour.  This could
take a book.  But for now, let me mention what I think are the
most important features:

 o  the use of multiple cycles, to provide the most opportunity
    to correct early misperceptions;

 o  multiple data sources at each cycle, to increase the chance
    of including all the relevant data;

 o  at each step, seeking out _disconfirming_ data and
    interpretations, to give the best chance of correcting
    errors.

As a bonus, you can involve the client(s) as co-researcher(s)
without damaging the rigour.

(For those who are interested, there is an archive at the
 University of Queensland with action research resource
 materials.  The simplest way to access it is to send the
 message   get ar_README                    [ an underline ]
      to   [email]      [ a hyphen     ].

(This will retrieve for you a summary of the archive contents.
 The files that address most closely the current topic are
 probably   ar_rigour   and   ar_guide.

Warren also wondered if people were able to combine the
practice and experimental research.  I think they complement
each other well.  Experimental methods allow the careful
testing of causal relationships between small numbers of
variables under controlled conditions.  Action research allows
one to pursue action outcomes and research outcomes at the same
time.  Different methods for different purposes.

    --  Bob


author: Lee Lady

subject: The Psychology of Beliefs, Opinions, and Arguments (was: Re: NLP...

text:
One of the things that I find fascinating about sci.psychology is that
the various psychologists posting here do not seem to recognize that
the very postings in the newsgroup are a phenomenon of psychological
interest.  For a while, there was some discussion of this in
sci.psychology.research, but as so often seems the case in academic
psychology, the direction of attention was determined by the methodology
customary by psychologists --- namely statistical studies --- and
consequently in my opinion the questions considered were rather
stupid.

What I have in mind is the phenomenon of beliefs and opinions.  To me, it
is rather fascinating that human beings seem to find such beliefs
essential to our functioning and that it is so important to defend
these beliefs and try to impose (or persuade, or whatever) them on
others.  To me, it seems like this is a very important riddle if one ever
wants to understand the structure of the human mind and why it is that we
human beings have such strange patterns of behavior, at least in
comparison to other animals.

I hate to bring down the wrath of all the anti-Freudians by using the
word "sublimation," but it seems to me that the ideological battles one
sees in usenet groups are a manifestation of the same instinct that
caused medieval knights to engage in combat for their lord or lady, or
high school students to vandalize opponents' campuses just before an
important football game.

One of the fascinating paradoxes is that if believes something very
deeply, it would seem to me that one would want more than merely to gain
the verbal assent of others.  It seems to me that one would want others
to thoroughly understand the reasons behind this belief.  And yet in
practice, the more strongly someone holds a belief, the more likely
that he will be willing to engage in dishonest argument to convince
others of it and even, if he has the power, resort to brute (or
legalistic) force to silence opponents.

Another thing that I think should be of interest to the psychologists of
cognition is the patterns which arguments follow.  There are several
classic patterns that one sees over and over again on usenet, and these
patterns are very different from the things taught in logic courses.

One very conspicuous pattern is that most arguments are about labels.
They are an attempt to establish an equation X = Y where  X  is a
highly charged label.  For instance during the Vietnam War, when
pacifism was a major issue, the compelling argument from pacifists was to
say that X = Y, where  X  is killing enemy soldiers in battle and  Y  is
murder.  For many, this equation alone was a completely decisive
argument.  (One can easily think of other examples involving such things
as rape, abortion, and pornography, but these issues are still highly
charged and more difficult to discuss dispassionately.)

A friend of mine gave up pacifism after hearing a counter-argument to the
Killing-in-Battle = Murder equation.  The counter-argument was that
murder is, by definition, illegal killing.  But a soldier in battle is
acting in accord with the laws of his government and hence is not engaged
in murder.  To me, it seemed a little strange that one's moral attitude
could essentially be determined by a dictionary, but my friend found this
argument very persuasive.

Here in sci.psychology, the really highly charged label is of course
Science.  If we can establish the equation  X = Science, then many of us
can be sure that  X  is good without need for further examination of
the merits of  X.  On the other hand, if one can establish the inequation
X != Science, this for many is adequate proof that  X  is not worthy
of serious attention.

There now ensues a pattern which is classic in this sort of argument
about labels, namely we very easily digress into the secondary argument
What Is Science?  To me, the fascinating thing is that we tend to take it
for granted that this is a meaningful question, as well as an important
one.  On some level, we verbal human beings seem to all be inherently
Platonists, unwilling to accept words such as Science as purely arbitrary
labels that we choose to pin on certain things for convenience.

But how can one establish the "true" meaning of a word like Science?
Well, that's the sort of issue that enables usenet to be a never-ending
pastime where controveries can never reach a resolution.  One person can
say that to understand "what science is" one can look at the history of
science.  Others will say that something is Science to the extent that it
ressembles the physical and biological sciences.  Others will say that it
has to do with the attitude involved in advancing that discipline.  Many
will say that Science is characterized by the Scientific Method.  This
becomes another magic label, and one gets into other arguments about
equations of the form  X = The Scientific Method.  One finds, for
instance, Ivan Goldberg, who apparently seriously believes that the
Scientific Method means doing five-year outcome studies.

An interesting thing is that Psychology is the first science to be
self-conscious about its science-ness.  Newton, Galileo, Roger Bacon,
Kelvin in the like didn't get into arguments like, "Well, if you roll
ball bearings down an inclined plane, would that be science?  Should
looking through a telescope be considered science?  Is it science if you
use mathematics to make deductions?"  They simply used whatever methods
they could find to get the answers they wanted.  But in certain parts of
psychology, it often seems (to me, anyway) that being "scientific" is a
bigger concern than actually getting results.

But why do so many of us human beings get so energized by this sort of
issue, these sorts of arguments?  Why do I find myself writing this
article when I have many more important things I should be spending my
time on?

And why don't psychologists seem to notice that arguing seems to be an
extremely odd form of behavior that we human animals engage in, and suspect
that being able to figure out why we are driven to do it might lead to
some very important clues about what makes us humans tick the way we do.

Another interesting pattern in arguments is that the most important
issues are almost never the things that are overtly stated but are
instead the things that are taken for granted.  What NLP calls the
presuppositions (a term from linguistics, of course).

It seems that people feel it would be a sign of weakness to state their
basic beliefs overtly.  To do so would indicate that these are open to
discussion, open to argument.  Instead, the speaker/writer leaves these
beliefs unstated, wanting the reader to "buy into them," trying to
establish the principle that *of course* these things will be taken for
granted.  This use of presuppositions is not that far removed from the
use of a loud voice to establish an argument.  It's actually a mild
form of intimidation.  "How could you dare to be ignorant enough to
argue with this thing that everyone takes for granted?"

Presuppositions are a language pattern that NLP puts a lot of emphasis
on.  Of course NLPers are not unique in their use of presuppositions.  As
I've just pointed out, everyone uses them.  Certainly every therapist
uses them.  As with many other language patterns, what NLP does is not to
put forth something unique and new, but to systematize things that have
always been a part of therapy.

Dan Reed uses presuppositions very well, just as if he had been expertly
taught in NLP trainings.  I want to analyze his article in detail because
his posting is very well written and he makes his point very
effectively, using the classic patterns of arguments.

In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.950103205108.21495A-100000-100000-100000-100000
          @mango.aloha.com> Dan Reed <[email]> writes:

Excellent!  Start out with a statement that everyone can agree with.  In
sales and hypnosis, this is called establishing a Yes Set.

This is a question that could lead to much worthwhile discussion.  But in
the present context, it's not presented as a true question but is purely
rhetorical.  This makes it much more likely to be accepted unquestionably
than if Reed has stated it as an assertion:  "It is impossible to know
that you are doing no harm without knowing about research on your
treatment."

There is another big presupposition here too.  "Patients are vulnerable."
Lots of people would agree with this in any case, but Reed makes sure we
accept it by not overtly stating it but just slipping it in as
something taken for granted.  (And incidentally, who are these
patients, anyway, and how do we know they're vulnerable?  Patients are
you and me and our friends and relatives.  Everyone is a patient at
times, even therapists.  And yes, we're all vulnerable.)

But why is the premise "Patients are vulnerable" relevant to the argument
at all?  Because it evokes an emotional response.  There is an
implication that patients are defenseless and that a therapist must not
take advantage of them by riding his own favorite hobby horse instead of
providing the most effective treatment.

Almost everyone could agree with this.  But it begs the real question:
What constitutes taking advantage of a patient?

Suppose a client comes to a therapist because s/he keeps having nightmares
about a traumatic event s/he went through.  Maybe a veteran of a terrible
experience in battle, maybe a woman who was raped.  Now which of the two
following approaches would amount to taking advantage of the client?

1) The therapist follows the conventionally sanctioned treatment and has
the satisfaction of knowing, whether he is successful or not, that he has
been "scientific" in his approach.

2) The therapist says to the client, "There's an NLP desensitization
technique for neutralizing traumatic memories.  It's a brief
visualization, taking about fifteen minutes.  It's been my experience
that many clients find it extremely helpful, and in fact some don't feel
the need for any subsequent treatment.  But it's not supported by any
scientific evidence.  Would you like me to try that first, realizing that
if I take time to do it and it doesn't work your therapy will require one
more session than it would have otherwise?"

I personally would feel taken advantage of by Therapist Number 1.  When I
go to a therapist or physician, I prefer to be made aware of all the
relevant treatments, not just the ones that fit my doctor's personal
value system.

The real message from Dan Reed is more hidden: "The most effective
treatment is the one which has been validated by research that is
called scientific."  Instead of baldly stating this (which many would
agree with and many others would not), Dan Reed makes a series of
statements and questions, many of them irrelevant from the strict point
of view of a logic course, all of which have this assertion as a
presupposition.


author: Ross Jeffries

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In article
<[email]>,
Dan Reed <[email]> wrote:

   So far so good....

  The question here is: what constitutes "research"?  Does "research"
require statistical analysis, double blind studies and the stuff generally
associated with "rat psychology"?

   I think it should not and does not.  If for example, a patient comes to
me with a flaming phobia of driving(he got a ride!) and I cure him, and I
follow up a year later with a phone call and find him to still be problem
free, that's not "research" as you might define it, but nonetheless the
treatment did work.

  We are doctors not witch doctors.  A treatment doesn't work

   See above; it depends on how you define "proven".  "Proven" by what
methodology?

    You're assuming NLP is limited to a set of techniques; it's also a
methodology that helps to clearly understand virtually anything.  No one
would suggest that the therapeutic aspects of NLP always work; it's just
that they work far more effectively, rapidly, predictably and pain-free
than any of the more "traditional" methods of "therapy".

  EMDR, from this NLPer's perspective works ONLY because it's a pattern
interrupt and also is disrupting the person's ability to form mental
imagery. I've been doing this for years in my seminars; have a person
visualize something and then wave your hand right in their face and it
screws up the image because people SUBJECTIVELY perceive their imagery
outside of themselves....

   You aren't; but your definitions and premises aren't clear.


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Dan Reed ([email]) wrote:

: Even though, as psychologists, we do not take the hypocratic oath and
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^

Looks like you hit the nail right on the head! Change the a to an i and
perfect the outcome of this magnificent slip!


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
I'm not sure which post in this thread led to the reply from
Dan Reed <[email]>.  Dan wrote, in part:

I've re-read the posts in the thread.  And I don't think _any_
of them were arguing against this basic position.  I certainly
think it is ethically responsible to do what we can to ensure
that treatments are effective and not harmful.

The "In reply to: " header suggests it might be to Rollin
Denniston's post.  Rollin, if I understood him, was arguing for
acceptance of a broader range of epistemologies.

But there are two important problems implicit in Dan's
position.

The first is that ethics are a matter of opinion.

Do academic psychologists and their trainees think it is
ethical to define what constitutes good research?  I imagine
they do.  Otherwise, I suspect, they wouldn't do it.

It would be easy enough, though, to arrive at a different
conclusion.

Do NLPers think it is ethical to treat their experience as a
valid source of knowledge?  I believe so.  Otherwise I don't
think they would behave as they do.

(Decline the noun ethical:  I am ethical;  you are a bit
opportunistic;  they are dishonest bastards.)

Do NLPers overestimate the effectiveness of their procedures?
Again, I expect so.  Just as academic psychologists seem to
overestimate the effectiveness of their own narrow version of
scientific method.  Is _this_ ethical?  I think that's a matter
of opinion too.

And that's the second problem.  As I said, psychology has taken
it upon itself to define, unilaterally, what constitutes good
research.  It teaches, as dogma, a particular version of the
scientific method, and a particular version of practitioner
training.

I might add that in doing so, it mostly ignores developments in
philosophy of science and in the other social sciences.

Now, I know of no research that _proves_ that the conventional
version of the scientific method is the only effective
approach.  I know of some research that implies that it isn't.

My own experience, when I became an applied psychologist and
consultant, was that I could use surprisingly little of what
I'd been taught about methodology.  I'm willing to be persuaded
otherwise.

In fact, I'd really like to have some informed discussion about
this.  _Informed_ discussion.  My preference is to avoid, if I
can, dogma masquerading as truth.

(No, Dan, I didn't take your post as a flame.  Nor was this
intended as one.)

    --  Bob


author: Rich Berman

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Dan Reed ([email]) wrote:

: patients.  We are doctors not witch doctors.  A treatment doesn't work
: because we think it works, or would very much like it to work.  It works
: if it is proven to work.  How else do you find out for what specific
: problems it works.  Please don't suggest that NLP works for everything.
: I keep hearing that sort of nonsense from the proponents of EMDR.

: Hope not to be flaming,

: Aloha
: ***
: Dan & Allyson Reed	[email]	Honolulu, Hawaii
: ***

Dan,

Permit an innocent question from someone who has not had the advantage of
post graduate statistics.  What happens if research results show that a
technique of "talk therapy" is only fifty percent effective.  Do you use
it?  What about a psychologist who is confront by a friend who complains
that he is down today and the psychologist points up to the tree and says
"look at the blue jays."  (An NLP technique, by the way)  Is he violating
the oath by using non researched methods.

My point is simply that most NLP techniques are as simple and harmless as
that.  While there are some you might argue are dangerous, (I can't think
of any) you are painting with a broad brush when you say using NLP is or
may be dangerous.  And I believe that you are making assumptions when you
say that research could in any way obviate the dangers.  Every person is
an individual, after all.

				Rich


author: Asya

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In article <[email]>,
Dan Reed  <[email]> wrote:

A treatment doesn't work because the therapist thinks it works, but it
does work if the client thinks so.


author: Jim Mork

subject: Re: The Psychology of Beliefs, Opinions, and Arguments (was: Re: NLP...

text:
Lee Lady ([email]) wrote:

: I hate to bring down the wrath of all the anti-Freudians by using the
: word "sublimation," but it seems to me that the ideological battles one
: sees in usenet groups are a manifestation of the same instinct that
: caused medieval knights to engage in combat for their lord or lady, or
: high school students to vandalize opponents' campuses just before an
: important football game.

It seems to me that, once the body's structure for battle gets geared up,
the "rational" parts of the brain get drafted for the PR function.  I
think that happened to German intellectuals during Bismarck's reign. And
when you see the lengthy twisted reasoning of some intellectuals to
justify military action in today's society (somehow Kissinger and
Kirkpatrick come to mind), you see it in full flower.  Attending to the
detail in the arguments themselves is being distracted by the trees and
missing the forest.  And I think the same thing happens in academia.  I
think academics tend to disbelieve the idea that their motives to argue
come from the more primitive parts of the brain.


author: Frank Fujita

text:
Let me start stating my basic beliefs in regards to NLP.  It is unproven.
It is not in my area of expertise.  Even if it were in my area of expertise,
I'd be foolish to put my effort into trying to prove the effectiveness of
NLP because of the institutional bias against it.  That does not mean that
it does not work, merely that the evidence has not been produced and
that there are biases against evidence being produced.  That leaves me
very agnostic.

Lee Lady ([email]) wrote:
: One of the things that I find fascinating about sci.psychology is that
: the various psychologists posting here do not seem to recognize that
: the very postings in the newsgroup are a phenomenon of psychological
: interest.

I believe that most of the psychologists do recognize the psychological
interest of postings in sci.psychology.  However, since these postings
are no more of interest than postings in any other newsgroup, this
interest is usually avoided.

: An interesting thing is that Psychology is the first science to be
: self-conscious about its science-ness.

Specifically because psychologists have to worry about using science to
learn about themselves -- this reflexivity requires sensitivity.

: Newton, Galileo, Roger Bacon,
: Kelvin in the like didn't get into arguments like, "Well, if you roll
: ball bearings down an inclined plane, would that be science?

These scientists were not competing with alchemists for government grants.

: It seems that people feel it would be a sign of weakness to state their
: basic beliefs overtly.

I would say that people feel it is redundent to state their basic beliefs
overtly.  Most people cannot imagine other people believing other basic
beliefs.  They are victims of the false consensus effect, and assume that
if they can only show (the opponent) how to reason from obviously true
basic beliefs to the conclusion about which there is an argument, then
the other person will realize the error of her ways and agree with oneself.

: It's actually a mild
: form of intimidation.  "How could you dare to be ignorant enough to
: argue with this thing that everyone takes for granted?"

: The real message from Dan Reed is more hidden: "The most effective
: treatment is the one which has been validated by research that is
: called scientific."  Instead of baldly stating this (which many would
: agree with and many others would not), Dan Reed makes a series of
: statements and questions, many of them irrelevant from the strict point
: of view of a logic course, all of which have this assertion as a
: presupposition.

I believe the hidden message is "given our ignorance of the efficacy and
dangers of various treatment methods, only methods that have been
validated by scientific research (research that is called scientific)
should be used"  I also believe that it is hidden because he believes it
too obvious to state, rather than a feeling that if he states it, then
it opens it up to questioning.

Of course, I do not know Dan's thought processes, but I thought I'd share
mine with Lee.

Frank Fujita


text:
Something interesting relevant to this topic just came up in a
conversation I was having with a friend this afternoon.

My friend is a recent atheist and is still in the process of coming to
terms with that.  This made me remember that when I was much younger, for
some reason people asked me a lot more frequently about my religion.
When I told them I was an atheist, they would say, "Well, if you don't
believe in God, what *do* you believe in then?"

Remembering this now, this seems like a very telling question.  The
presupposition is that it's impossible for us human organisms to function
without "believing in" something.  Thinking of this now, I'm not even
completely sure what the phrase "believing in" means in this context.
Certainly it translates to "believing in the existence of,"  but there
seems to be more to it than just that.  It seems to also have something
to do with "trusting in," and thinking that this thing/principle one
believes in gives a significance to one's life, whatever the hell that
means.

It seems to me that in order for us human animals to function in the
peculiar ways we do, have have to impose a lot of organization/structure
on our subjective experience.  Otherwise we would never engage in such
bizarre behavioral patterns as getting out of bed when the alarm rings,
washing our faces, and getting into the car and getting onto the freeway
to drive to work.  (But only Monday through Friday.  Being able to
organize our time so thoroughly that we can distinguish days of the week
is certainly a major cognitive accomplishment.)

So does this need to impose organization on our subjective experience
tend to lead us to search for a "significance" to our lives, and
consequently to a belief in an authority superior to us?  Certainly lots
of people are willing to address this issue from a humanistic or cultural
point of view, but I wonder if there's not some clue here to a strictly
scientific understanding of how the human mind functions.

In any case, now that I'm much older I find myself much more willing to
accept the point of view that it's okay for religious beliefs to be much
more arbitrary than I used to think and that it can be perfectly okay
to believe in things that are not true.  (And what does it mean to
"believe in something" and yet at the same time know that this thing is
probably not true?)


author: John M. Grohol

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
[email] (Ross Jeffries) writes:

[...]

This is called a "case study" and is publishable; it is the weakest kind
of research in the field. Psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theorists often
use these types of "studies" to justify their continued use.

Now, if you put an ad in a local paper looking for people with phobias,
have them come in for treatment (free of charge, of course, since it is
research), randomly assign the subjects to one of two groups: treatment
and control (make sure you have at least 20-30 subjects in each group),
conduct thorough evaluations and pre-test measurements on all subjects,
then do the therapy on those 30 treatment individuals (and if you use
other therapists to do the treatment, make sure you have standardized
their training and experience with these techniques), make sure your
drop-out rate isn't too high in either group, conduct post-treatment
measures, then conduct post-treatment followups with both groups.

This would be an example of better and more power-ful research. Case
studies are fine for articulating a hypothesis or what-have-you, but
serious research in this field requires a lot more work...

-jmg


author: Dangerous Dave

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
I've just read this thread and have just joined the group.  Forgive me if I'm a
bit redundant or off, but I really want to jump in here.  For what it's worth,
my problem with NLP is indeed the lack of rigorous study of the tenets and
therapeutic effectiveness.  I'm not saying that there is only ONE way to study
phenomena, but science is a good way (admittedly these are MY values).  Science
isn't some voodoo method that chases away the effects as soon as one makes a
scientific observation.  I hear that kind of idea when I talk to people about
science and pseudoscientific endeavors.  For some reason, modern science is no
good, according to some people, for studying things like NLP.  Sure there are
shortcomings in the current scientific method, but to abandon it virtually
altogether is a mistake, I think.  Specifically, I have found NLP research to
rely very heavily on anecdotal evidence.  While this is a good starting ground
for discovery, to rely so heavily on this method of data collection leaves so
many questions unanswered, like observer error, demand characteristics,
placebo, history, you name it.  Conversely, to rely on only laboratory data
collection methods is restrictive too in terms of answering questions.  I don't
think that the arguements should be so dichotomized between "do double blind
studies" vs. "therapist/client observation is all we need".  Lets do it all.
Why not?  And, why is it not being done?  How is it that since 1975 when NLP
was first introduced there have been only a dozen or so solid attempts at
verification in the psychology literature?  Granted it has been about four
years since I have done a lit review, but nonetheless, scholarly writing and
inquiry has been rather scarce especially when considering the huge amount of
material generated by demonstration books, tapes, seminars, credentialing, etc.
        I'll admit I am rather sceptical about NLP at this point.  I have seen
a mountain of commercial enterprise promoting the methods and approach and only
a trickle of effort to substantiate the claims made by NLP.  When NIMH (I
think) released a report a couple of years ago (a meta analysis I believe) it
was not surprising to me to hear that they found little if any evidence for the
veracity of many of the main tenets of NLP.  Indeed, when I first read some of
the official NLP books, I was struck with the feeling that someone was trying
to pull the wool over my eyes with a lot of jargon.  But I didn't want the way
someone expressed themselves to interfere with WHAT they were trying to say.  I
have tried (and done a decent job, I think) to maintain an open mind as I think
a good scientist should.  If I were only to rely on those initial feelings,
perhaps I would have unfairly and inaccurately closed my mind to it.  So again
I make the point, relying on one mode of information gathering (like initial
feelings) leaves much unexplored and unanswered.  I have learned more about NLP
in the ensuing years.  That is good from the standpoint of a scientist.
Nevertheless, I have yet to really be impressed.  What is going on with NLPers
that so many espouse NLP's tremendous strengths and potential, but few have
systematically studied those strengths?  Is is inappropriate, perhaps a faux
pas, to ask NLPers to substantiate their claims via methods beside (or in
addition to) anectdotes?  My challenge is this:  Impress me with process and
outcome studies.  Impress me with controlled environments to study those
outcomes and even the basic theoretical constructs.  Keep up the good work with
the clinical observations, but don't rely so much on casual observation.
Rigorous study is possible in the therapy room with only one client at a time.
N of 1 research can be very informative if done well (I've seen it done).

I also don't mean this to be a flame.  Please don't take it as such. :-)

                -Dave


author: Dan Hankins

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
In artice <3ekunr$[email]> bob dick ([email]) wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist; I'm a computer programmer and
philosopher.

There's only one scientific method--that works:

1. Observation
2. Hypothesis to explain the observation (i.e. potential concept)
3. Design of experiment whose results could be used to disprove the
   hypothesis
4. Experimentation
5. Experiment result inconsistent with hypothesis?  Go to 2.
6. Experiment result consistent with hypothesis?  Then hypothesis is
   confirmed, in the context of the evidence so far available.  If you
   wish to strengthen the hypothesis, go to 3.

What I think NLPers and conventional psychologists/therapists disagree on
is which experimental techniques are appropriate for testing psychological
theories.


author: Stephen Robbins

text:
In article <3er48a$[email]> [email] (Jim Mork) writes:

There's a great discussion of this phenomenon in the book:
	Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain
	by Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine
	Addison-Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-49088-9

This book is an excellent discussion of how recent research info brain
structure, cognitive science, etc., etc. NLPers will probably find
it fascinating.

- S


text:
In article <[email]>
          [email] (Frank Fujita) writes:

Yes, exactly.  It seems at least arguable that the contemporary
institutionalization of science, with government grants and strong
pressure on scientists to produce voluminous publications, actually
hinders the process of real scientific discovery more than otherwise.

Of course important discoveries do get made, in psychology as well as
other fields.  But when one considers the number of scientists active
today it seems questionable whether institutional science is really an
efficient way of discovering new knowledge.

But the physical and biological sciences at least have the advantage of
being able to build on roots that were laid down at a time when no one
worried about whether they were being "scientific" or not; in fact, the
word "science" in its modern sense did not even exist in these times.

To me, it seems reasonable to speculate that this is one of the reasons
why psychology, despite the enormous number of man-years invested in it,
seems to have so much trouble getting anywhere or even coming to an
agreement on fundamental principles.


author: STAN MULAIK

text:
| : Newton, Galileo, Roger Bacon,
| : Kelvin in the like didn't get into arguments like, "Well, if you roll
| : ball bearings down an inclined plane, would that be science?
|
| These scientists were not competing with alchemists for government grants.

Actually, some of them were working both sides of the street.  Newton was
perhaps the last of the great alchemists.  He amassed a library on alchemy
that was remarkable, and a great boon for historians of Newton's period.
Newton likely got metals poisoning that contributed to his suspicious
behavior for a number of years by breathing the fumes from his alchemical
furnace.


text:
I want to say something about the rhetorical device Frank Fujita did not
comment on: establishing a Yes Set.  In this, the speaker begins by
making one or more statements that the listener will surely agree with.
Then, having in this way "won the listener's trust," he makes the more
questionable statement which he is really trying to sell the listener on.

My question is: why does this work?  It's easy to give explanations that
make sense on an intuitive level.  That is to say, they make sense if we
take for granted all those things we intuitively know about human
psychology.  But this is precisely what the psychologist should not want
to do.

We hear a statement and we evaluate it as to whether we agree or not.
What does that mean, to evaluate it, and why do we do that?  Do we, in
fact, always do that?

No, we tend to be more skeptical and critical in some contexts than
others.  In those interactions called arguments, we are especially
critical, on the alert for statements we might object to.

Just as I believe that an argument is an expression of the same urge as
that behind physical aggression and combat, my speculation is that this
process of evaluating statements critically basically involves the same
brain circuitry used to evaluate environments and situations as safe or
not safe; the brain has to provide an answer to the question, "Do I
need to be ready to fight or not?"  And the answer provided seems to be
not very complicated: either "Yes, I need to go into fight mode," or
"No, there's no danger here," or "Maybe; this may be okay, but I need
to stay alert because there may still be a possibility of danger."

Now how does the brain make its answer known to the subject?  (This may
seem like an odd question, but the brain is really a multiprocessor and
there has to be a way of signalling the result of any process to the
center of conscious control.)   My belief (influenced by my study of
NLP) is that the signal it sends is in the form of a feeling.  As we
NLPers would say, the signal is in the kinesthetic system.

Now the kinesthetic (or somasthetic) system changes much more slowly than
the visual or auditory systems.  In other words, there's a lot of
intertia in the kinesthetic system.  So once one has heard several
sentences and the brain has been sending the signal, "These sentences are
safe; you don't need to go into fight mode (or argument mode)," that
signal will tend to persist for the following sentences.  And if
sentences follow each other fairly quickly, the brain doesn't have time
to evaluate each one individually.

Anyway, that's my speculation.  I think it would make an interesting
topic to investigate and I think it's typical of many scientifically
interesting hypotheses that a psychologist might come up with as a
result of learning a little NLP.


text:
Frank Fujita ([email]) wrote:

: I would say that people feel it is redundent to state their basic beliefs
: overtly.  Most people cannot imagine other people believing other basic

Most people don't want to DEBATE their assumptions.  In fact, most people
are in a poor position to debate their assumptions.  And it would muck up
a perfectly decent (tho empty) debate.


author: Arun Gupta

text:
In article <[email]>,
Lee Lady <[email]> wrote:

To me "what do you believe in" asks the question : what is the basis
of your (personal) system of morals ?

-arun gupta


author: Bill Goodrich

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
Partway through the message, Dave asks the critical question:

[email] (Dangerous Dave) writes:

                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^

As someone involved in a much more recent rigorous study, I can give you
one answer - one you are probably not going to like. The plain fact is,
virtually all of the refereed psychology journals have explicit policies
against accepting (much less reviewing or publishing) papers validating
any part of NLP. While descriptions of APPLICATIONS of NLP have been
published in other psychological publications, validation studies have
not been PUBLISHED.

The vast majority of the early, published research was along two lines:
(1) the mistaken notion that NLP treats all eye movements as accessing
cues, coupled with the mistaken notion that NLP proposed two fixed maps
of eye accessing cues - one for right-handers, the other for lefties;
(2) The mistaken notion that NLP proposes that all predicates someone
uses reflect a single, preferred representation system. The results of
those studies failed to support those notions, although they were
entirely consistant with the actual NLP constructs. Unfortunately, the
majority of researchers and reviewers have blindly accepted the above
misconceptions as authoritative.

If I sound bitter, it is because three friends of mine lost 5 years'
work and were threatened with loss of tenure and/or position if they
released their study in any form. On top of that, I keep hearing (and
reading posts from) people who interpret the seeming silence as a lack
of existing research and a lack of interest in substantive research
within the NLP community. I find it interesting that they don't draw
any such conclusions from the lack of studies discrediting any of the
vast majority of NLP.

If the journals are your primary source for the latter, that is not
surprising. The above policies, coupled with an APA position
discouraging such research (and declaring NLP as quackery) have gone a
long way towards creating the impression that there is no significant
data supporting any part of NLP. You can still find the supporting data
by learning enough about NLP to recognize the descriptions without the
title "NLP" attached.

I did not take your statement as a flame, and I hope you will not take
this statement as one.

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
many
on
was
sick.

My anecdote(although real) was to try to make a point about confounding issues
that can blur the issue of 'what works', something NLPers don't seem to
appreciate. I would use the patch because it has been tested in clinical trials
although it remains to be seen if it works for my situation. Also there are
intervention techniques in the literature such as work done by NASA on motion
sickness ie Environmental, Space and Aviation Medicine. I prefer techniques
that have some theoretical and empiricial evidence besides just anecdata.

Chuck Villarrubia


subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
[email] (Dan Hankins) writes:

It might be more accurate to say that they (we, even though I have a
foot in each camp) disagree whether experimantal techniques designed for
testing psychological theories are necessary and sufficient for testing
psychotherapeutic techniques. Those designs are based on a "theory first,
technique later" model of the world, while the NLP portfolio consists of
emperically-derived techniques without any unified underlying theory.
The theory-testing designs are more concerned with WHY someone does/
doesn't do something than with whether some process works as advertised.

In point of fact, your 6 steps constitute a good description of the
first part of the basic process of NLP. In addition, just add:

7. Remove one (other) portion of the technique.
8. Experiment.
9. Experiment result inconsistent with previous results? Restore portion
   and go to step 7.
10.Experiment result consistent with previous results and not all
   portions tested? Return to step 7.
11.Experiment result consistent with previous results and all portions
   tested? Name the technique.

This process is also known as stepwise refinement.

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


author: Rollin Denniston

subject: Re: Psychology and nlp

text:
[email] (Dan Hankins) wrote:

This all works as long as it is applied to the external physical realm.
Once you turn the 'Observation' step inward to the domain of the Psyche,
you are dealing with a different set of governing laws and it is neither
useful nor appropriate to apply the epistemology designed for developing
knowledge of the physical to the development of knowledge of the metaphysical.

The entire set of steps outlined above is based on the presupposition
that that which is being studied can be 'Observed' that results can be
'Observed' and a comparison made with an abstract conceptual structure
(i.e., hypothesis.) This works adequately within the same context that
Newtonian physics is applicable. The basic problem with the 'science
of psychology' is that it fails to recognize the validity of the assertion
that in this field all N=1. In fact if _psych_ology is the study of the
mind, then there is only one directly observable sample for each observer.
All other observations are indirect interpretations subject to high levels
of noise.

NLP itself presents an alternative epistemology for the domain of subjective
experience. At one time there was (and still may be) a rather tongue-
in-cheek journal called the 'Journal of Irreproducible Results.' We
may well be looking at something on the order of the oxymoronish when
we consider something like 'anecdotal science' but stranger things have
happened. (Although not to the hallowed halls of institutionalized science
I suspect.

BTW, it is not my intention to condemn or even critcize those who have
been posting in this group and on this thread. I want to offer information
from an alternative perceptual position about an alternative perceptual
position.

Rollin Denniston