| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP Changework vs. Therapy and Coaching |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 30/04/2003 14:14:43 |
|
nj, "A Science Of Representations might influence people to conceptualize humans as machines, as if human cognitive products are technology products." I believe that cultural leanings already play toward conceptualizing humans as machines. And it's funny that we're actually having this argument, since NLP has an information-processing conception of human processes (I guess the Freudian model was based in hydraulics, as they say). Perhaps we measure ourselves by the technological metaphors most present at the time, so that's understandable. I don't believe that's the cause of our lack of empathy with each other. Besides, people are often more lovable toward their machines than they are with other people, and that's often because people are more unpredictable and complex than machines, and more dangerous, besides. I don't want to make my stand for a science of reps anymore. I certainly will not be one of the research fellows and/or deciding who gets funded, not with my background. I just believe it would have to be a lot less deterministic and more open-ended than you seem to believe it would be. I see it as more of a meta-analysis of other fields. It might help ask questions like, what is the appeal of the statistical method applied to behavior, how do we imagine it, and how does that make it work for us? What about these other methods of doing research, how do we represent them as to make them seem less real, what is a possible cultural bias of how it gets represented, and what would make it more plausible? You could ask, how do we represent machines and how do we represent humans, and how do these reps overlap, and not, and what seems or doesn't seem appropriate, and what strategies do we use to decide what's appropriate and how do we construct a concept such as appropriateness? I think cognitive science is already building the human-machine monster you're afraid of, and a science of reps, the way I see it, might best counter it. But I have no personal interest in speculating anymore about this. I might be interested in hearing how the science of reps would build the monster, from you're pov. Let's face it, we're talking about a huge, abstract nominalization, and yours may having nothing to do with mine. best, JS |