Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics
Posted by: Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
Date/Time: 04/01/2003 11:23:38

The problem with the scientific studies you refer to in the other tread may be of course that the setup of the experiment may not be completely correct according to the NLP body of knowledge.  In a scientific field, some credibilkle researcher would take up articles such as those you quote, examine them and point out the flaws in the study (if there are any).  So your response is the typical scientific reflex, namely asking: "what does the NLP community have to say about that?"  Given that the NLP community didn't do its homework, that is taken to mean "see, they can't prove it, that NLP stuff is just pseudo-science rubbish." 

Not that we couldn't prove it if we wanted...  Actually, in "Whispering" you find a good way of dealing with such studies: see discussion op page 80-81 about verification of a pattern. 

Unfortunately for NLP's credibility, there haven't been enough verification studies done of the kind of this example, and certainly not a lot published in respected peer reviewed publications.  My interpretation (I hope John Grinder will either confirm it or refute it) is that the original modelers went from "statistical research is difficult" to an arrogant way of thinking, something like "we can't be bothered with such details.  We know what we know and if they don't want to believe us, they are just stupid".  And as you can interpret from my mails, I don't agree that we as a communite "can't be bothered", quite on the contrary: "that the modeler would set up statistical sound studies to back up their models" is my addition to the recommendations for the modeler/designer (see "Whispering" p 350-355).  Even if those statistical studies are not a complete representation of what goes on in the brain, at least if increases the credibility that NLP helps to understand something of what is going on between stimulus and response.


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
NLP & statistics02/01/2003 10:42:12Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics02/01/2003 11:27:47Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 08:44:24Bruce
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 11:23:38Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 18:33:09Bruce
     Re:NLP & statistics05/01/2003 17:23:40John Grinder
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics06/01/2003 07:47:18Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics17/01/2003 19:46:21John Grinder
               NLP & statistics18/01/2003 00:16:31suzyhomemaker
                    Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 04:03:44John Grinder
                         Re:Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 23:03:27Robert
                    Re:NLP & statistics09/02/2003 12:10:24Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               27/02/2003 02:28:33Ryan Nagy
               NLP/statistics/dynamic systems27/02/2003 02:33:32Ryan Nagy
                    Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems03/03/2003 06:53:34Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 17:45:19Ryan Nagy
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 22:09:54John Grinder
          A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 03:19:20Rob Manson
               Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 04:16:48John Grinder
                    Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 10:55:06Rob Manson
                         Re:Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 17:22:38John Grinder
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:54:19Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:46John Grinder
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 05:35:59Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:48John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:53John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 05:53:24nj
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 07:39:41Rob Manson
                                   Re:Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 17:24:09John Grinder
                                        Re:Modelling vs Analysis22/01/2003 23:16:12Rob Manson
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:55:16Rob Manson
     Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 06:49:17Mike
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 16:39:35John Grinder
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 17:25:03Mike
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 18:26:08John Grinder
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics28/01/2003 20:04:54Mike

Forum Home