The Logic Off Topic list

Hi Tony,

[psychology]
>I would probably enjoy it more now if I could be bothered to go into it
>again, as it has moved on from the behaviourist nonsense it was only just
>starting to scrape itself out of at the time.
Yes ... that behaviourist whatever was certainly a theoretical dead-end to 
put it politely.

[neuro-linguistic programming]
>I think the worst thing to do with this is to buy the whole shop as an
>academic theory.
Well ... that's kind of how it set off presenting itself, far as I recall. 
Bandler was a mathematician who specifically tried to introduce 
mathematical modelling into psychological discourse as a way -- and it was 
his deliberate intent -- of better modelling how the brain worked by better 
modelling how neurons worked in the sense of their tendency to 'experiment' 
with different connections. I've lost complete track of what he's up to, 
but didn't he add his background and interests as a musician to it all and 
incorporate things about sound theory? Far as I recall, he mathematically 
modelled the neurological impact of sound and produced Neuro-Sonics which 
uses his idea of how sound impacts the brain through neurons and thus 
allows music and the qualities of music to create and manage specific 
internal states. Isn't his latest baby Design Human Engineering?

And as for Grinder,  he explicitly stated that he was trying to overthrow 
the contemporary academic paradigm. He was very open that he was planning a 
campaign of academic attack. He was very open, and said it often, that his 
basic modus operandi was to base his attack upon the paradigm upon the 
great esteem in which he held Thomas Kuhn's ides about how paradigms were 
overthrown (the guy who wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). 
Grinder took very careful not of how previous paradigms had, according to 
Kuhn, been overthrown, and he proceeded on that basis. Not only that, but 
he said some in an interview I read that I thought so extraordinary I wrote 
it down: 'I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were 
qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, 
its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn 
identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts".

That's to say, he thought it to his advantage to try to overthrow an 
academic paradigm because he was treading into a field he knew nothing 
about. I found this strange because what I got from Kuhn was that when 
people like Maxwell Faraday or Einstein or Galileo started overthrowing a 
paradigm it was because they actually knew rather a lot about the current 
paradigm that they were overthrowing, but that they disagreed with it and 
proceeded to show why. Seems to me that there's rather a great deal of 
difference between knowing a lot and disagreeing and knowing nothing and 
speaking anyway.

I have to say that it was when I read that about Grinder, and when I saw 
that what they were doing was not so much trying to offer new ideas which 
could be assessed as deliberately trying to show that what was already 
there should be swept aside that I lost a bit of patience with them.

I'm afraid ... Bandler and Grinder started off offering NLP as a viable 
academic theory. Grinder in particular tried to extend what Chomsky had 
done concerning 'deep structure' and how languages were learned into a 
method of assessing psychological structure in the sense that if there was 
a deep structure to language, then there was a deep map for neurons. 
Bandler then tried to validate this mathematically through modelling. When 
it didn't all work out academically quite as they wanted and wasn't 
accepted, they then went off into using it to earn money as a kind of New 
Age Therapy. I have nothing against New Age therapies, I might add. I am 
just not buying the idea that they never intended it as a bona fide 
academic movement. That is exactly what they intended it as.

>It's a collection of techniques of construing and
>reconstruing 'problems' amongst other things, and dealing with them quickly
>so people can move on.
OK. But that's what it became. Not what it started out as.

As for your quote from O'Connor and Seymour:

>So NLP does not claim to be
>objectively true. It is a model, and models are meant to be useful.'

That was not the aim when NLP first appeared. Although it might be what 
O'Connor and Seymour are up to.

I also agree with NLP in terms of the fact that it tries to stop people 
handing themselves and their treatments over to therapists for years on 
end. That much I agree is of great value.

>My son has Asperger's Syndrome, which is a form of high-functioning autism.

Gosh. I am very sorry to hear that. Can I ask three questions? Please feel 
free not to answer them if you would rather not because I will quite 
understand, under the circumstances. Does he also have a particular talent 
as a part of the overall complex of properties that go along with his 
particular manifestation of the syndrome? Is he overly literal -- so maybe 
has difficulty appreciating that words often flex and bend with contexts? 
And do you, as a parent, find yourself being somehow 'blamed' for things 
that he does that are a part of the syndrome but that outsiders might put 
down to you and your supposedly bad parenting?


>  The problem with academic Psych for me
>was that there was all this building of camps & schools in competition with
>each other in the pursuit of career and reputation.
I agree with this, but to be truthful in the case of NLP I think they got 
exactly what they were asking for in their overall approach.

>You'd find the same
>basic concept labelled 5 different ways in 5 different theorists' work
>because they had to put their own stamp on it.
Yes. A problem with all the social sciences, though, is that in the end 
data must be interpreted, and that data is only really the behaviour of 
human beings who tend to buck against a trend or a model as soon as they 
see it being applied to them. Just to show that while it may be true of all 
them other guys, it's definitely not true of me. The person who can come up 
with an idea about mind or behaviour that manages to defeat that is 
certainly going to be very famous, and I guess every body wants to be that 
somebody. Except me. I'm neither one of them nor one of them other guys. 
I'm special. (!!!!!)


>Grinder in the preface to 'An Introduction to NLP' by O'Connor & Seymour:
>
>These two men,
<snip>

I think that if Bandler and Grinder had started off like that when they 
first presented their ideas, things would have been a lot different.

>I got through a whole book on NLP without finding a single reference to
>''self-esteem' or indeed  'self-realization' - you may be confusing it with
>other so-called  'human potential' approaches and indeed general
>psychobabble.
Probably so. When I read about it it was to get a historical overview, and 
so how it ended up, namely being regarded as simply yet another new age 
alternative 'polish your navel' type philosophy.

I am very happy to accept that this characterization does it a disservice.

>Nor does it have disciples! You need to do the theatre thing
>and suspend disbelief to use it.
I was kind of in ironic humorous mode there!!

[maths and patterns]
>Well, thanks for that - I'm looking for a transitional state/entry level
>_for me_ -which may or may not exist...

It's right where you're looking, right now.

>If you've ever meditated successfully
I have ... but never kind of thought of NLP as having a similar kind of 
navigational or internal dialogue capability. As already said, I am happy 
to reassess this.

>... NLP, to its credit, discusses
>these things without any unnecessary spiritual dressing or other fuss -
Probably a good thing.

>unlike conventionaL psychology, which can be terrrified of these concepts.
True.

>She was referring to Hindi and other Asian languages in terms of their
>longterm linguistic purity (including a written form going back very far)
>over many centuries and to _all_English as a Creole.
I see. Well ... I would kind of agree with her about the English as a 
Creole bit. Personally, I think that this is one of the reasons for the 
charm and strength and power of the English language -- its ability to so 
readily absorb so many different forms and ideas from so many other 
languages while all the time retaining a certain structural and historical 
integrity right from the days of the Angles when Bede first documented its 
existence.

About the 'linguistic purity' of Hindi I can't say that I agree with her, 
although I can understand why she would say it. If she had said Sanskrit, I 
would be more prepared to agree.

Actually, I remember a very funny story about Indira Gandhi. She was at an 
international conference and could understand everything everyone had to 
say ... except for the delegate from India whom she could not comprehend. 
When she got back to India she got in touch with the Education Minister and 
complained to him about the falling standards of English in Indian schools. 
Funny thing was ... everyone else at the conference seems to have 
understood her delegate just fine!!!

>  English belongs to all
>of us in that sense - including all those good people on this list who use
>it as a second language.
I agree that English 'belongs to all of us'. Unfortunately, there's a fair 
few people want to make sure that it's stamped as 'their' property. A 
battle that cannot be won, but don't understand why it's fought. You should 
catch some of the 'English Language Amendment' people there are in the US. 
Best say nothing further cause I'd like to live a bit longer.


>I taught the audio segment of a National Diploma in Media course for a while
Must have been interesting!

>(basically recording for radio/TV) and was intrigued by the preponderance of
>people on the course whose family background was not UK native in the
>broadest sense and indeed were often not native English speakers
Lots of us in the world, actually.

>- anything
>from Belgian and Spanish to Nigerian, Vietnamese and Thai. It made me wonder
>about having an upbringing in a different language and cultural environment
>and whether this gave more interest and awareness in methods of
>communication that might otherwise be the case.
To the last part of this, I think it does. Native English speakers tend to 
be a tad unusual in that a greater proportion of them only speak only the 
one language. I remember reading an interesting book by David Crystal in 
which he analysed the effects of this, but it was a long time ago now and I 
can't remember the details. (Why mention it then??!!!!!) The general 
thrust, though, was that it did make a difference to people when they had a 
choice about which language to communicate in. I think the phenomenon's 
called 'variety freedom', but I'm not sure.


>The only programming I need in the Eight Bells is in the taste of the
>current guest real ale. There are some brewers I would _definitely_ bow to
>respectfully.

My good friend Ronnie always used to say that about Newcastle Brown. He 
just used to quaff, lift his glass a little higher so that the light shone 
on it well, look carefully at the elixir, smile knowingly to himself, sigh, 
and then put down his tankard. Good lad he was. Haven't seen him in a while.

Keep well.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com