User talk:Harristweed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hallo. I'm a biology researcher. Feel free to make any comments that you feel are helpful. Harristweed 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional information on sources for Figley / Lilienfeld

Figley's that include NLP or VKD include Charles R. Figley (Editor) Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation.. A short description is available online: [1]

• Lilienfeld criticism of VK/D (Figley etc.) be found in Lilienfeld et al (2003) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology the criticism is repeated in Science and Pseudoscience in the development of EMDR inplicatons for clinical psychology

There are, however, a large number of largely or entirely unvalidated therapies being actively marketed to those providing traumatology services, including TFT (Callahan, 1995; Gallo, 1995), TIR (Gerbode, 1985, 1995), VKD (Bandler & Grinder, 1979), and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD; Mitchell, 1988). These interventions represent a cottage industry that is being actively promoted to the mental health profession via workshop training that is outside the context of substantive evaluation (Figley, 1995, 1997; Figley & Carbonell, 1996). These techniques either have not been empirically investigated using controlled studies (Gist, 1996; Gist, Lubin, & Redburn, 1998; Hooke, 1998) or have been found to be no more effective than control procedures (Lohr et al., 1998, 1999).[2] --Comaze 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. I am not sure how relevant Figley is though having had a closer look at it. What does Figley say about NLP specifically? Harristweed 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Figley is the editor of Traumatology, and many other journals. He is Professors at Florida State and has tenure. You are going to find it hard to argue to remove that source. Given that there are no other specific techniques that have been criticised by Lilienfeld, if Figley goes then it is unlikely that Lilienfeld would be kept. --Comaze 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze. It looks relevant to the article. But it could do with better framing I think. Lilienfeld is a review but Figley seems to be a single study so perhaps its better in another section. Perhaps somewhere related to the specific element it measures. Thanks again. Harristweed 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already moved Lilienfeld and Figley to the mental health section. Lilienfeld has not published a literature review on NLP. --Comaze 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Comaze. But Lilienfeld has an expert view and his book seems to review NLP in some detail. So there is some difference between the Figley and that specific Lilienfeld literature. As a resolution I am only suggesting to keep the Lilienfeld view as review because he seems to have studied it in the broadest sense. Harristweed 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have access to Figley's review of Lilienfeld "Figley, C. R. (2003). Review of Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (New York: Guilford, 2002), Journal of Trauma Practice, 2:4, 234-237." --Comaze 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well no. The focus should be on reviews of NLP. Harristweed 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a side issue. Lilienfeld's Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology has been cited many times on wikipedia without proper context or characterisation of bias. It would be interesting to read Figley's review. Anyway, thanks for your contributions on NLP article. --Comaze 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions are most welcome

My appologies for the confrontational atmosphere on the NLP talk page. Unfortunatly there's been an ongoing dispute there. All of the most troublesome edits were eventually banned. I hope you return with rigor :) --Comaze 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)