User talk:GregA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion of NLP outline

Write whatever here. Be civil as per Arbitration guidelines. Greg


Hello GregA. Interesting argument! I have a few questions.

  1. Are you denying that many NLPers claim that NLP is a science?
  2. Are you saying that NLP does not need scientific testing after it was found to be ineffective?
  3. Are you denying that reviewers of NLP research have stated that NLP is ineffective?
  4. Are you saying that your own research supercedes the research of independent scientific researchers?
  5. Are you saying that the research on NLP focused only on PRS?

ATB. Camridge 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Camridge, thanks for dropping in. In answer to your questions...

  1. No, not at all. I believe any NLPer who says that should understand what it means and why they claim it's a science. I certainly "deny" that any NLPer claims that NLP is Psychology though, or that NLP uses the scientific method.
  2. In answer to your question - I'm not sure where you got this from, I said nothing of the sort. In answer to your presupposition - there has been psychological testing that found it effective (and I'm saying that). Fill me in on where you got this question from and I'll reply more fully.
  3. Nope, not denying that some reviewers have said it's ineffective. I do debate that "all" do, and I do debate that they are as unbiased as implied (given the titles and target audience for their books).
  4. hehe... where did you get that? Of course not. I am saying it is a failing of BOTH NLP and Psychology that they haven't attempted to do research TOGETHER to show any validity (or lack of) for NLP processes.
  5. PRS - not "ONLY" - a lot of early stuff was PRS, and it sways much of the reviews. By far the greatest quantity of research was in PRS (and a lot on Rep Systems generally too) - there's far less research into re-imprinting or metamodel!

Thanks Camridge. Greg 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early comments

[edit] Lakoff

Here are all the references to Lakoff that I know of...

  • pp.109,208 Structure of Magic Vol.1 (cites Linguistic and Natural Language, 1970)
  • Patterns II also cites Lakoff (1970)
  • Lakoff gets a mention in Whispering in the footnotes of Ch.3 (18) but this is relation to Susan Elgin (a co-author and research partner of John Grinder in the early 70s) challenge to Lakoff.
--Comaze 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NLP Arbitration

This is a courtesy note to those who voted in the Arbitration vote posted Nov 3 on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming.

Please be aware that a request for arbitration has now been submitted.

The parties involved have been notified on their talk pages, and on the article itself.

FT2 12:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

Yeah. Sorry for removing your comments without an explanation. What you said most definitely was fine, but jdavidb wants to follow this format, so... --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored your comment

...about flavius. Please stick to discussing issues, don't comment on contributors, particularly something insulting about their motives. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Workshop

Hello Greg. Sorry to make this request but there's simply too much filibustering on the NLP workshop page for me to follow it all on an ongoing basis. Would you be so kind as to give me a heads up if and when anything ever goes to a vote, straw poll, etc (like the recent request from kate) and I'll read everything and voice my opinion at that time? And if you're ever unsure, err on the side of letting me know. Is that something you can do for me? I know it's a bit of an ask. Peace either way. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Greg, that's perfect. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories in userspace

Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:GregA/NLP you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Pseudoscience and many others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it.") Cheers, Ziggurat 20:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP & science

Comments and edits on that articles talk page? FT2 (Talk) 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Overview article

I have moved "NLP Overview" to User:GregA/NLP Overview, it should not be in the Main namespace. See User talk:GregA/NLP Overview#Main namespace for details. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)