• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Yet more NLP BS

Maartenn100, selectively excluding stuff from your experience is a recurring theme in all your threads.

That your "nope" apparently is meant to indicate that you now do not recognize this in yourself, shows you your problem in just four letters.
 
Let's ask some meta-model questions here:


Daylightstar said:
Maartenn100, selectively excluding stuff from your experience is a recurring theme in all your threads.
Click to expand...

In all my threads? (generalisation) Can you give at least five examples of these threads and show me where I exactly 'selectively excluded stuff from my experience' and what you mean by that? (using nominalisations (stuff) and unspecified verb (excluding from my experience)).

Daylightstar said:
That your "nope" apparently is meant to indicate that...
Click to expand...

'Apparently meant to indicate' how? How does it indicate that exactly? (unspecified verb)

Daylightstar said:
you now do not recognize this in yourself, shows you your problem in just four letters.
Click to expand...

What do you mean with 'my problem' exactly? (nominalisation) Explain what you mean with 'excluding stuff from my experience' in detail. (unspecified verb and nominalisation)


For the reader: these are meta-model questions. Very useful to critical thinkers. But can Daylightstar answer them in detail?
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Let's ask some meta-model questions here:




In all my threads? (generalisation) Can you give at least five examples of these threads and show me where I exactly 'selectively excluded stuff from my experience' and what you mean by that? (using nominalisations (stuff) and unspecified verb (excluding from my experience)).



'Apparently meant to indicate' how? How does it indicate that exactly? (unspecified verb)



What do you mean with 'my problem' exactly? (nominalisation) Explain what you mean with 'excluding stuff from my experience' in detail. (unspecified verb and nominalisation)


For the reader: these are meta-model questions. Very useful to critical thinkers. But can Daylightstar answer them in detail?
Click to expand...

I am just quoting in order to maintain the content of your current post content.
It'll be a while later before I reply, but I will.
 
Another use of the meta-model:

Daylightstar said:
All you have to do is engage in the questions asked. You don't do this very well and consequently you do not explain anything very well.
Click to expand...

meta-model question: based on what do you conlclude that I not do this very well? What's your reasoning here? Give at least a few examples. (more then one). (missing information or deletion)
Anything? (generalisation) Do I not explain anything very well? Or just a few things, ans which things are not explained very well? (deletion)

Daylighstar said:
On top of that, you demonstrate that you do not really understand the subject of your attachment all that well.
Click to expand...

How exactly do I demonstrate that I don't understand the subject of my attachment (the meta-model)? (unspecified verb)

Daylightstar said:
These are things you appear to want to selectively exclude from your experience, but what you don't understand all that well, is that others don't (selectively) exclude it from their experience.
Click to expand...

What do you mean exactly by 'selectively excluding it from the experience"?
Can you explain that. (unspecified verb, nominalisation).

Enough stuff to demonstrate the usefulness of the meta-model of NLP.
But will Daylighstar be able to give more detailed information?

The purpose of the metamodel of NLP is to bring the person back to the experience or evidence where he or she is basing his or her generalisations, delations or distortions on.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
It's the typical false dilemma of this forum: it must be perfect and a breakthrough in science or it is nonsense.
Something, imperfect, but very useful is still not good enough.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. We should not expect an emerging theoretical framework to have all the properties of a mature discipline. It is unfair to demand more than a new idea can bear.

However, that raises the question of why pursue something that isn't yielding fruit? Well, we do it because it interests us, or gives us hope for future progress, or even merely because it's a different way of looking at the world.

In that light, I guess my real beef with NLP isn't with the ideas per se, but with some of the practitioners. That's pretty faint praise for a category of knowledge though - not yet coherent enough to debunk.
 
Just read the Wiki entry for Neuro Linguistic Programming. I think it's pretty good. It reminded me of the original idea I found interesting, back when I first read about Bandler and Grinder. To wit, the notion that you could extract and mimic those attributes of an expert which gave them their expertise.

I still like the idea and think it has found a place in expert systems but could be used just as well as a training aid in an apprenticeship or formal course of study. It seemed especially valuable to me in fields where human-human interaction is critical.

Anyhow, NLP has moved pretty far from this root notion, and I think the term pseudoscience is apt.
 
Marplots said:
we do it because it interests us, or gives us hope for future progress, or even merely because it's a different way of looking at the world.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here.
 
jakesteele said:
Could someone explain how Brown did that trick with the BMX in lieu of a leather jacket?
Click to expand...

It's called 'analogue marking'. You can look it up. I tested this for myself; it doesn't work. Search: 'embedded commands in nlp' or 'analogue marking'. Doesn't work. It's also unethical to use it.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
Could someone explain how Brown did that trick with the BMX in lieu of a leather jacket?
Click to expand...

Maartenn100 said:
It's called 'analogue marking'. You can look it up. I tested this for myself; it doesn't work. Search: 'embedded commands in nlp' or 'analogue marking'. Doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You tested it yourself after it was already exposed on this thread on page one and two... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4741638#post4741638
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4749488#post4749488
 
Another interesting technique of NLP is 'reframing'.
Context-reframing and Content-reframing.
http://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-glossary/c/content-reframe/

F.e.: one of the useful presuppositions of nlp:

"failure or mistakes can be seen as 'feedback in a learning process'. (analogy: feedback in a cybernetic system)
A mistake or constructive criticism provides new information to integrate and to improve your performance, like in a feedbackloop."
The meta-model is a useful tool to ask for more information when confronted with criticism in order to integrate this feedback.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
...
In all my threads? (generalisation) Can you give at least five examples of these threads and show me where I exactly 'selectively excluded stuff from my experience' and what you mean by that? (using nominalisations (stuff) and unspecified verb (excluding from my experience)).
...
Click to expand...
Sure. You have a number of threads like these five:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291423
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298071
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291518
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263855
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259864

You display extreme irratonality in those threads. What you selectively exclude from your experience is the corrections and directions for learning you receive from other people in those threads.
Afterwards, you simply revert to your irrational rethoric and opinions as if you never received those corrections and directions.

This is rampant throughout your threads.


Maartenn100 said:
...
'Apparently meant to indicate' how? How does it indicate that exactly? (unspecified verb)
...
Click to expand...
"Apparently meant to indicate" means that you posted the single four letter word "nope" in apparent response to my post in which I asked you whether you can recognize in yourself that you selectively exclude NLP details put to you and questions asked with regard to those NLP details.
In apparent response because the post preceding your four letter word post follows my precedes post by only one minute and your "nope" does not appear to fit as a response to that post.


Maartenn100 said:
...
What do you mean with 'my problem' exactly? (nominalisation) Explain what you mean with 'excluding stuff from my experience' in detail. (unspecified verb and nominalisation)
...
Click to expand...
"Your problem" refers to your selectively excluding from your experience the corrections and directions for learning you have received from other people in your threads, which leads to you not learning. That, obviously, is a problem.
Of course, it is possible that someone with a highly irrational mindset remains 'blissfully' unaware of such a problem.
I already explained what I mean with excluding stuff from your experience.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Another interesting technique of NLP is 'reframing'.
Context-reframing and Content-reframing.
http://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-glossary/c/content-reframe/

F.e.: one of the useful presuppositions of nlp:

"failure or mistakes can be seen as 'feedback in a learning process'. (analogy: feedback in a cybernetic system)
A mistake or constructive criticism provides new information to integrate and to improve your performance, like in a feedbackloop."
The meta-model is a useful tool to ask for more information when confronted with criticism in order to integrate this feedback.
Click to expand...

From that link:
The purpose of reframing is to help a person experience their actions, the impact of their beliefs, etc. from a different perspective (frame) and potentially be more resourceful or have more choice in how they react.
Click to expand...
Considering the displayed lack of you learning from your betters in these forums, I'd say reframing fails you miserably.
In your case it leads to extremely restrictive thinking in that you are restricted to your irrational beliefs and irrational thinking.
To maintain this (for you) 'comfortable' restrictive thinking, you need to selectively exclude stuff from your experience.
It's comfortable for you because you are consciously(!) unable to move beyond that restrictive thinking.
 
Maartenn100 said:
...
The meta-model is a useful tool to ask for more information when confronted with criticism in order to integrate this feedback.
Click to expand...

Which 'deletions' do you think enables the meta model to identify?
(and no, 'deletions' are not missing information in a sentence)
'Deletions' are the 'selective exclusions from your experience'. The links you provided confirm this)
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
...
meta-model question: based on what do you conlclude that I not do this very well? What's your reasoning here? Give at least a few examples. (more then one). (missing information or deletion)
Anything? (generalisation) Do I not explain anything very well? Or just a few things, ans which things are not explained very well? (deletion)
...
Click to expand...
Based on the lack of coherent responses you give to questions. "Anything" refers to the questions asked of you.
I don't think I said that you don't engage with some questions very well.


Maartenn100 said:
...
How exactly do I demonstrate that I don't understand the subject of my attachment (the meta-model)? (unspecified verb)
...
Click to expand...
By responding such that you reject basic NLP definitions or assigning an alternative meaning to them, 'deletions' is a strong case in point.


Maartenn100 said:
...
What do you mean exactly by 'selectively excluding it from the experience"?
Can you explain that. (unspecified verb, nominalisation).
...
Click to expand...
For instance, when the actual meaning of a definition is corrected for you, you reject it by persisting in your alternative meaning in your own words of a definition.
You are selectively excluding these corrections from your experience. It is quite similar to what you do in your other threads, as I have explained here.


Maartenn100 said:
...
The purpose of the metamodel of NLP is to bring the person back to the experience or evidence where he or she is basing his or her generalisations, delations or distortions on.
Click to expand...
or:
http://www.nlpls.com/articles/NLPmetaModel.php
The function, then, of the Meta Model is to help us identify problematic deletions, distortions and generalizations in our internal thinking patterns and our linguistic interactions with each other, and to propose ways of transforming them or revising their use in certain contexts.
Click to expand...
or:
Maartenn100 said:
Daylightstar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_neuro-linguistic_programming#Meta_model

"The NLP meta-model, being based on the verbal patterning of Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir, is intended to facilitate detecting the indicators of limiting beliefs and restrictive thinking. ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom