buylotrogold

I look forward to reading more on this thread.  Beats neuro-linguistic programming. amen Randy

I look forward to reading more on this thread.  Beats neuro-linguistic programming. Why do I think that this stimulus was inserted here to elicit a particular type of response?  Well, I don't mind confirming your paradigm:  I'll respond!   If in fact it the techniques developed by NLP are effective in producing very specific and readily testable changes in people, then any theory of psychology that is unable to explain these results is clearly inadequate.  This would be so even if it were true that NLP only provides a quick fix or for other reasons has limited clinical value. I realize that it can be very satisfying to confine your research to experiments with laboratory animals where you know that your theory works.  Some people consider this being scientific. I'm a mathematician, not an empirical scientist.  But in my opinion, in order to really be doing science one has to look for all those cases where one's theory doesn't seem to fit what actually happens, or where other explanations produce better results.   The attitude  of scientific psychologists   Well, we don't need to know about NLP  reminds me of what Poincare said when Lebesgue first produced examples of functions with counter-intuitive properties (such as being nowhere differentiable):   Well, even if such functions exist, the proper thing for mathematicians to do is to just ignore them.   The history of twentieth century mathematics shows that those who ignored Poincare's advice produced interesting and valuable mathematics.   I believe that those scientific psychologists who examine NLP as a possible source of ideas, hypotheses, questions, and phenomena to be explained will produce interesting and scientifically valuable psychology.