Talk:NLP

I think that NLP_and_science at WP makes for interesting reading. :-) --Bob M 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading indeed! Yet another great example of misinformation that vested interests spread about. It turns out that one of the most important studies (Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques (1988) - Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education) that the critics use and that supposedly discredits PNL does nothing of the sort:


 * Read the bit on Applications and Comments - while not actually saying that it is the be all and end all of techniques, it does refer to its potential... contrary to what the Wikipedia article claims that this particular study states.


 * Analogies abound, and the warring factions in the social & health sciences in general mean that no-one who is not directly a practicioner of a certain discipline will ever have a good word to say for any method other than his/her own. Ditto language teaching methods. Ditto evolution, and just 'bout anything else that is subject to controversy...


 * I've just attended an international conference (700 attendees) as an unbiased spectator and was shocked at the violent demonstrations of intolerance shown by participating experts accusing each other in public of all sorts of professional incompetence. Amazing.--Technopat 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)