| Topic: | Re:NLP & statistics |
| Posted by: | Bruce |
| Date/Time: | 04/01/2003 18:33:09 |
|
Again I agree with you patrick and this is as far as I see why many psychologists still see NLP as pop psychology at the best. If an NLP researcher is to design an experiment it is incumbent upon them to design it in such a way that it is falsifiable, so that if the null hypothesis is upheld, they accept the results at face value. To then post hoc "discover" why they obtained a null hypothesis result is fine, providing they then test that discovery in a refined experiment. My reading of p80-81 is that this is exactly what is lacking in this hypothetical piece of research. The possibility that other cortical activity would intervene before the eventual outcome of an above the horizon position of the eyes is not factored into the experimental design in the first place. To work in the way suggested on page 81 is similar to suggest in testing psychoanalysis that due to the process of internalisation children of aggressive parents will develop into aggressive adults themselves, then explaining children who grow up into passive adults through the concept of reaction formation. It is surely a reasonable assumption to suggest the teaching of such hypotheses as accessing cues are factual, as done in NLP training seminars all over, is irresponsible and unethical in the light of equivocal experimental evidence. Having said all of this I remain an ardent fan of NLP being a newcomer to it, and hope the kind of research needed to establish it as a serious proposition is forthcoming by the credible like researchers you mention. Regards, Bruce. |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| NLP & statistics | 02/01/2003 10:42:12 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 02/01/2003 11:27:47 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 08:44:24 | Bruce |
| Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 11:23:38 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 18:33:09 | Bruce |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 05/01/2003 17:23:40 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 06/01/2003 07:47:18 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 17/01/2003 19:46:21 | John Grinder |
| NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 00:16:31 | suzyhomemaker |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 04:03:44 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 23:03:27 | Robert |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 09/02/2003 12:10:24 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| 27/02/2003 02:28:33 | Ryan Nagy | |
| NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 27/02/2003 02:33:32 | Ryan Nagy |
| Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 03/03/2003 06:53:34 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
| Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 04/03/2003 17:45:19 | Ryan Nagy |
| Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 04/03/2003 22:09:54 | John Grinder |
| A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 03:19:20 | Rob Manson |
| Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 04:16:48 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 10:55:06 | Rob Manson |
| Re:Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 17:22:38 | John Grinder |
| The genetics analogy | 21/01/2003 11:54:19 | Rob Manson |
| Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:46 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 05:35:59 | Rob Manson |
| Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:48 | John Grinder |
| Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:53 | John Grinder |
| Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 05:53:24 | nj |
| Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 07:39:41 | Rob Manson |
| Re:Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 17:24:09 | John Grinder |
| Re:Modelling vs Analysis | 22/01/2003 23:16:12 | Rob Manson |
| The genetics analogy | 21/01/2003 11:55:16 | Rob Manson |
| Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 06:49:17 | Mike |
| Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 16:39:35 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 17:25:03 | Mike |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 18:26:08 | John Grinder |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 28/01/2003 20:04:54 | Mike |