User talk:Flavius vanillus

Greetings Flavius

Welcome to Wikipedia. The NPOV article is a good one to have a quick look through. I suggest you have a good look through some of those references on NLP also. Seems that you know what you are talking about. Don't worry if someone labels you a sockpuppet. If you are a neutral editor on an article fraught with fervent believers, it is almost guaranteed to happen.

Best regards HeadleyHeadleyDown 12:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

question about NLP trainer

It does sound like you were duped with your NLP training. I know that there are some dodgy trainers due to the lack of quality controls and exagerated claims. This bastardization of NLP really annoys me.

Everyone that has undertaken NLP training has been duped, not just me. NLP itself is a patchwork bastard so bastardisation is really only a matter of quantity rather quality. flavius 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion it takes 200-300 days training and daily practise for years to become proficient in NLP. Some trainers claim that someone can become a practitioner in 20 days, or even less.

You can't become proficient at NLP because it doesn't work. NLP is a granfalloon (i.e. a proud and meaningless association of human beings). "Doing NLP" is a sort of game that you play with other members of the granfalloon. You are distinguished as proficient by the more senior members of the granfalloon when you can reproduce a meaningless ritual. In this manner, NLP is not unlike Freemasonry. An example of this is the notion of "nested loops". There is no evidence that using nested loops produces more persuasive or engaging presentations. Further, if you study the transcripts of persuasive and engaging presentations and speeches (eg. Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Noam Chomsky, highly-rated university lecturers, courtroom presentations by skilled barristers (attorneys)) no nested loops can be found. People with no prior exposure to NLP -- without any preconceptions and not in the company of NLPers during the presentation that invariably "ooh and ahh" as they play the game (you can witness this at most NLP seminars) -- typically assess a speaker who uses nested loops as rambling, tangential, scattered and sometimes tedious. flavius 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask, who were you trained in NLP by? how much did you spend? how many days did you participate in NLP training? How much time did you spent practising the patterns at home and in the world? I don't want to know any of your personally identifiable details just enough to give me a good idea of what went on, who were the trainers and organisations involved, etc. --Comaze 12:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't tell you all of that because I don't want to give you the opportunity to distract yourself with the idea that my dissatisfaction stems entirely from my inadequate training and because I don't want to risk defaming anyone (even if the chances of a civil suit a slim). I received training from a well-known North American trainer that worships at the feet of Bandler. Additiobnally, I've studied numerous videotapes, CDs and books from Bandler, Hall/Bodenhammer, Kenrick Cleveland and Tad James. flavius 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, you raise some very good questions here and on the talk page, especially the questions about epistemology and philosophy. I need to check my sources before I respond. regards, --Comaze 08:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

avoid personal remarks

Please remove you personal remarks directed at my username, "for you, FT2, Comaze, the crackpot conspiracy theorist and NLP" [1] --Comaze 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The crackpot conspiracy theorist remark was directed not at you but at Mr Bowan the author of "Operation Mind Control" that shared his "insights" about the origins of NLP. It is telling though that you would interpret an ambiguous sentence structure in that manner. If I wanted to call you a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" I would have structured my sentence thus: "for you, FT2, Comaze (the crackpot conspiracy theorist) and NLP" or "for you, FT2, the crackpot conspiracy theorist Comaze and NLP". Have you been called a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" before? flavius 00:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not read into the content, just noticed that one of the ways ambigious was a personal remark that is against wikipedia policy. Let's see if we can restore some civility on the talk page. --Comaze 11:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Prose

I could ask the same question [2] of other editors but I keep it to myself. If you think the discussion is going to get personal, you can ask the editor via private message or email. Nonetheless, I think that the entire documents needs to be copyedited, so if you have time, please correct my prose. --Comaze 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hanlon's Razor

Hanlon's Razor: :Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I thought you'd like that one :) --Comaze 07:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Open arbitration

You seem to be a participant in the events being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. You may be affected by the remedies in that matter. You may place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 15:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Dowlen's (1996)

Hi Comaze. I'll re-read the article. On the basis of my first reading I don't think it adds much to either the pro or con side that hasn't already been stated. In the interests of brevity and focussing on improving what's presently there (through substantiation) we should be careful in what we're adding. That notwithstanding, I will re-read it tomorrow. I've been skim reading Frogs and I can't find the quote attributed to that book regarding B&G saying they're not scientists. The only similar quote I can find is: 'We call ourselves modelers. What we essentially do is pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do...We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true."' (p.7) I suppose they would also say they are not scientists but I can't find a quote in which they say that explicitly. In Whispering Grinder repeatedly refers to himself as a "researcher". Though in numerous Bandler seminars he does suggest he is a scientist by referring to himself as a mathematician, computer scientists and physicist. I suppose the editor was trying to relay this flip-floppig by B&G (especially Bandler). Also, I haven't checked if it hasn't been removed yet but that "Vexen Crabtree" citation and the sentence about NLP and cults attributed to Crabtree should be removed. I've flagged this matter earlier. flavius 12:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flavius, In Frogs B&G imply that they are not scientists, I am also unable to find a explicit quote for this. Neither B or G follow the scientific method. Looking forward to any comments on any useful points made by Downlen around history, epistemology, background, research and usefulness in various management applications... And yes, citing the unknown "Vexen Crabtree" in the same paragraph as some experts was embarressing. It was me (not HD) who expanded that p.7 quote on the talk page -- I did this before you replied here. To my knowledge Bandler currently has no interest in academic research. In a recent interview (from nlpmp3.com) Bandler claims to be developing a portable MRI-like device for use in modeling. Given that Grinder was a legitimate linguist in the early 70s and with his recent academic publication with Bostic St Clair and Malloy (2003, 2005) does this satisfy the criteria of researcher? Mulitple citations from external researchers would prove this to be the case. --Comaze 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Good work on the NLP article. Don't let the idiots wear you out. BrianH123 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. flavius 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Help

As you can see I have been tirelessly converting havard refs to footnotes, can you help out?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll see what I can do. Sunday late afternoon or evening may be free. flavius

NLP

I must agree with BrianH123 -- you seem to have put in an enormous amount of research and effort to your work!

Thank you very much for your comments on senses and NLP -- I can see that academically speaking this is a very flawed (possibly fatally so) area. I have no vested interest in the debate on either side but was wondering if the area has been deemed by scientists to have dubious value to what should we attribute the apparent anecdotal success of people such as mentalist Derren Brown? Surely the susceptability of people (those who are gullible or otherwise) to fraudulent activities such as ouija boards, clairvoyants, con artists etc. would tend to indicate that on some level there are systems where by people can be influenced? (Even if NLP is not an accurate or successful method to describe or reproduce such systems -- which is what it appears to wish that it was...)

Coricus 09:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentalism has nothing to do with NLP. Derren Brown's effects are produced using conjuring, mentalism, reading micro expressions, showmanship and in a few cases, deception. Many of Browns' most impressive tricks are variations of old mentalist acts. Mentalists such as Max Maven and Banacheck show you how to create many effect like Browns' on their instructional videos. In his book Pure Effect Brown states that

NLP is a communication tool that blends aspects of Behaviourism and Chomskian Linguistics into a highly evangelical package. It has built around itself a rather creepy scene and in a rather dubious and unchecked way has become a massive industry in the worlds of trendy management-training and alternative therapies. Having trained with the highly likeable founder of NLP, I find it a mixture of sensible and appealing methods for dealing with low-level pathologies such as phobias and fears on the one hand, and sheer daft nonsense and massive rhetoric on the other. (p. 107)

There is really no substantial support for the specific claims that NLP makes and much of it can be dismissed as vacuous nonsense. (p. 110)

(from Brown, D. (2000) Pure Effect:Direct Midreading and Magical Artistry, H&R Magic Books)

Regarding NLPs positive anecdotal evidence Tye (1994) offers the following hypothesis:

One must reconcile the null results reported by Sharpley and the NRC [National Research Council] with the remarkable successes reported in the case study literature. An alternative explanation is suggested here to explain the discrepancy between the positive case study outcomes achieved by NLP paractitioners and the frequently lackluster results of experimental researchers. The alternative will be termed the "psycho shaman effect." Like NLP techniques, the psycho shaman effect is a collection of already existing, well understood and accepted ideas. Specifically it has three components: cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma. (from Tye, M.J.C (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.)

Certainly people can be persuaded and influenced, this is the province of social psychology (see [3][4][5]). An accessible and interesting social psychology based book on the topic of influence and persuasion is Cialdini, R. B. (1998) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Collins (see [6]). Susceptibility to bunkum is also due to certain well-known weaknesses of human cognition and memory. You can read about these in

Gilovich, T. (1993) How We Know What Isn't So, Free Press

Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (1996) Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds, Wiley

Schacter, D. L. (2002) The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers, Houghton Mifflin

Many psychics and clairvoyants use "cold reading" (some use "warm reading" also) and mentalist effects.

I hope this has been useful for you. flavius 13:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    That's fascinating. Thank you for the useful sources to check out. Coricus 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics Proceedure

Flavius thanks for all your comments on the NLP Wiki discussion page! I am slowly studying various roots and aspects of NLP and the TG model. I am at times reverting to the TG and with your input I get to expand some of my info. To make a more detailed study of Linguistics and these various aproaches, ie TG, what might be some exciting books I might read that will lead me from piece to piece and theory to destroyed/modified/proved/whatever theory is next? I have not yet purchased a copy of syntactic structure. I get bogged down in crap but then I find my way and my interrest in linguistic study and pick it up again. Know what I mean? Anyhow a progression that would lead me to understand today's linguistic suppositions, how they are formed, who is for what and why would really be useful to me. When I get around to reading it would be helpful to know what to read and sequencewise would be handy dandy. jVirus 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. I'd start with a introductory linguistics textbook, one that is used to teach first-year linguistics at university. Many universities have their syllabi, course notes and booklists on the WWW, enter "linguistics site:.edu" in Google. I wouldn't use Syntactic Structures as a starting point. flavius 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the info I am looking forward to a great study! P.S. I am curious, do you feel that the meta-model works, as in gets the results it claims reguardless of its foundation? jVirus 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Grinder suggests that the Meta-Model in its original form is outdated and that it can be reduced to one fundamental question:What/Where/How/Which specifically? (see Whispering p.22, 54, 87, 121, 122, 124-6, 153, 220). The Meta-Model in its original form and its new streamlined form is quite banal, it is a very small subset of what is conventionally known as "clear thinking". There's nothing new or novel in the Meta-Model. In at least Western thought one of the first systems of questioning is the Socratic Method -- which is from the 5th C. BC. Although Socrates did not prescribe a "recipe" as per Bandler and Grinder, effective use of the Socratic Method encompasses all of the concerns of the Meta-Model (and much more). For example, Cognitive Therapy (and Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy) is an adaptation of the Socratic Method to psychotherapy (see [7][8]). TG doesn't work as a model for language a fortiori a general model of cognition and behaviour. Hence any technique or theory based on such weak foundation is going to be flawed and incomplete and such is the case with the Meta-Model. The Meta-Model does indeed describe some common errors of thought that have been known for hundreds of years before NLP was formulated and are well-known by good journalists, psychotherapists, lawyers and teachers. The problem with it is that it is incomplete and this incompleteness is attributable to the falseness of the core notion of Deep Structure/Surface Structure. The artifice of DS/SS blinds NLPers to the other common defects in human learning, memory and thinking which can't be subsumed under that conceptual scheme. So in direct answer to your question the Meta-Model does "work" in the sense that it provides a (limited) recipe for conversational challenges and it highlights some of the errors in thought and memory that we are vulnerable to but it is flawed in that it doesn't address all of the defects in thinking that we know about (that cause misunderstanding, confusion, conflict and emotional distress) and NLP is dogmatic about the cognitive basis of emotional distress. A depressive person may very well be violating the Meta-Model but that in no way establishes the direction of causation from Meta-Model violation to depression and no evidence of such causation has been presented. Furthermore, some depressions have a biological origin (eg. post-partum depression[9][10][11]) and the Meta-Model violations that NLPers focus on follow rather than cause the depression in these cases[12][13][14][15][16]). The point being that no amount of beating over the head of a mother with post-partum depression with the Meta-Model will help even if she is performing numerous violations since the mild-cognitive impairment that produces the Meta-Model violations is not causative. Hope this answers your concerns. flavius 11:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dang Flavius you sure know your stuff. I am actually currently reading The Structure of Magic I again and more in depth. I realize the atiquated nature and inacuracy of the flawed models presented. I do find some of the insights assistant since it has been my experience that so many therapists I have known don't go anywhere.

If you haven't ever studied rhetoric, Socratic method, (Western) philosophy and (informal) logic then the Meta-Model will be enlightening. Since most people haven't learnt how to think logically and have a weak grasp of the notion of evidence the Meta-Model will prompt those that learn it and those that have it applied to them to think clearly and specifically (within the limits of the Meta-Model) about certain things. If you find that the Meta-Model clarifies your thinking then studying informal fallcies and informal logic may be even more enlightening for you. The numerous catalogues of informal fallacies (see for example [17]) are "supersets" of the Meta-Model. For example, unspecified referential index and unspecified verb are instances of the informal fallacy of vagueness[18]; universal quantifiers is an instance of the informal fallacy of hasty generalization[19] or that of sweeping generalization[20] or that of unrepresentative sample[21](depending on its peculiarities).flavius 06:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that the patterns taught in Frogs into Princes work? I think there are three main patterns they present.

I'm not certain what you are referring to. Do you mean the Meta-Model patterns? Are you referring to Generalization, Deletion and Distortion? These are the mechanisms of abstraction that we supposedly used to build our internal models of the world, they are the reason why the "map is not the territory". B&G got this idea largely (if not entirely) from Korzybski. In Magic I B&G specify 12 basic problems in connection with description and communication of experience:

1. Simple deletion
2. Comparative deletion
3. Unspecified referential index
4. Unspecified verbs
5. Nominalization
6. Universal quantifiers
7. Modal operators
8. Complex equivalence
9. Presupposition
10. Cause-effect
11. Mind-reading
12. Lost Performative

Indeed people do exhibit these problems of cognition, memory and perception but they exhibit more such problems than the above list would suggest. The above list is biased towards vagueness and loss of specificity and this bias is confirmed by Grinder's reduction of the Meta-Model to one fundamental question (what/where/how/when/which specifically?). This bias originates from the heavy influence of General Semantics on NLP. GS is concerned with abstraction and how it helps and hinders communication and understanding. Higher-levels of abstraction yield sparser "models" or "maps". The Meta-Model is predicated on the GS assumption that abstraction and the associated loss of specificity is the only feature of cognition that can potentially produce problems. This is why the Meta-Model is incomplete -- it's foundational assumptions are wrong. Abstraction is merely one source of error in communication and description. Does this make sense? If you read:

How We Know What Isn't So[22]

The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers[23]

Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds[24]

Thinking From A to Z[25]

You'll have a much larger "vocabulary" for dialogic challenge (with others and self) than the Meta-Model will give you. The Meta-Model is Socratic Method Lite -- By Numbers or Socratic Method for the masses. flavius 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Frogs Into Princes Effectiveness

Flavius I am blown away! I am so stoked to read the books on logic. Thanks for the heads up. This is really going to help me in the knowledge zone. All of your refrences and thoughts are very well thought out, very refrenced, and quite well placed! When I mentioned the 3 patterns mentioned in Frogs into Princes I think I was referring to, as best as I can label them, 1. Change personal history, 2. fast phobia removal, 3. six step reframing, and whether you feel that the patterns presented actually got the results claimed? P.S. Have you read all those logic books you mentioned? P.S. Check Talk:Metamodel out and put a reply if you have one. jVirus 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Change personal history -- No evidence that it works and even if it did it isn't a healthy way to deal with the unpleasant and distressful experiences in our past

Fast phobia removal -- No evidence that it works and very similar to Dianetic auditing

Six-step reframing -- No evidence that it works, very New Age

I own and have read all but Seven Sins of Memory (it's out-of-print) which I have read a synposis of. flavius 11:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense especially in the scientific arena. Have you tried these patterns yourself? jVirus 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried those patterns and more. I've tried some on others, some on myself, I've had some applied to me and I've also observed other applying them to other people. They don't work. When they do appear to work it is due to non-specific factors and placebo. flavius 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You've tried the techniques on others also right? jVirus 08:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my additional question right here above. jVirus 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a clinician so I don't try to treat peoples' illnesses and it would be unethical to perform amateur experiments on ill people. If someone comes to tell me that they're feeling depressed I wouldn't dare attempting to use NLP to help them. It is most unethical for an amaeteur to attempt to treat mental illness, it is unconscionable for an amateur to use a method for which there is no evidence of its efficacy on an ill person. I have used NLP persuasion and rapport techniques on other people and no they don't work. flavius 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I didnt know you were not a clinician. Its cool. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 12:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Avoid personal remarks

Flavius. Please take care to avoid personal attacks against Wikipedia users -- in reference to your comments:

• "Again you are parading your ignorance." [26]
• "... you would like to pretend ..." [27]
• "Your notion of argument is aberrant. You are typing gibberish." [28]
• "[your argument] betrays a lack of interest in how things actually are." [29]

Peace. Metta Bubble 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cynicism. flavius 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Frank Farelly

I am 60.240.178.243 and 202.7.176.134. I decided to create an account when I saw how many times these IP addresses had been used to make edits. I have added more material regarding Bandler's litigation. I think the entry now reads as a potted biography (which it should). Perhaps more can be added regarding Bandler's influences eg. Robert Anton Wilson, Aleister Crowley, Timothy Leary, Moshe Felendekrais. Also, Frank Farelly and Moshe Felendehrais did not appear to influence any of the work jointly undertaken by Bandler and Grinder. flavius 05:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius, I have a tape her of Bandler and Grinder modeling Frank at a convetion for psychotherapists. I'm not aware of any jointly published books based on this work. --Comaze 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tread softly, no stepping on toes

Hallo Flavius. We have some constructive discussion going on in the workshop article [30]. I have been blocked twice already for behaving pretty much the same as 99% of other wikipedia editors. And apparently, there is nothing in the incivility article that caters for badgering editors with repeat already answered questions. So I guess we are going to have to dance with them, rather than defend with spiked shields. Good job your judo is up to standard. No pressure to contribute, of course. Especially as wasting researcher's time is such a favoured strategy. Cheers Camridge 07:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for an hour

For this comment. PLEASE be civil. If you have a problem with how we are doing things, then email us privately and we'll deal with it. We're not perfect. But paragraph long attacks against anyone including the mentors will not be tolerated. Heed Camridge's advice. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And I am not revulsed by abstraction. You are completely misreading the purpose of the mentors here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did restore most of what you said. Criticizing us is ok if you feel like we are not doing something correctly. But some of what you said clearly crossed the line into incivility. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"We're not perfect". No shit. You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article. All three of you have a set of generic brand tinned responses that you re-heat and serve up as haute cuisine. Then you have the audacity to become indignant when this is pointed out to you. Clearly you don't understand the technical matters that are germane to the topic of NLP and are either unwilling or unable to adjudicate over the actual points of contention between the editors. In lieu of addressing the real editorial problems you and your buddies have chosen to trade platitudes and cliches and pat each other on the back for your flaccid contributions. Please. flavius 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)