User:Harristweed

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

Thanks for the message HarrisTweed. It's difficult to tell whether the numbered editors like '58' and '210' are all the same person. Also alot of the major editing goes on overnight (GMT) so they're on a different timescale to me. I see you are a proper scientist and it's a shame not to have you on the site. It needs proper scientists to break the deadlock, even if it's not your field.

I don't have easy access to scientific journals that require subscription. I would be really grateful if you get me the context for the quote from Sharpley about putting NLP "in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field." I think it comes towards the end of the 1987 one.

Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.

Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(2), 238-248.

I would also be grateful for any more science research on whether NLP is pseudoscience. It should be relatively easy for me to ascertain to what extent important NLP proponants describe it as science, apart from the jargon. Fainites 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm happy to help. I'm not that keen on confrontational situations though. The NLP article seems to be a very hard place to deal with. There is such a strong reluctance to present the scientific overview. I also see quite a bit of trolling and pressure from Comaze. I am not keen on anyone being subjected to such an attitude. I myself would rather deal with more reasonable editors. I'll paste Sharpley's information for you soon. Harristweed 09:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, my intent is not to troll or pressure anyone here. Unfortunately the science is not as black and white as some have suggested. There are differing opinions on the research. --Comaze 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ever so Fainites 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. Interesting but I suppose you could say the same about aromatherapy! What did you mean by the 'Norcross' research from AB. Is that Lilienfield?Fainites 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi HarrisTweed. Hope even mentioning NLP won't give you a sleepless night. We're gradually working our way through the references. Everyone I looked at was wrong! I think you might like our new improved Research Reviews section though. I just wanted to ask, the 1987 Sharpley research you looked up for me, did Sharpley say NLP was a cult or psychocult in it? It seems unlikely but someones put him in as having said it.Fainites 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd love to see a copy of 'Drenth, J.D. (2003). [Pieter J.D. Drenth (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science in ALLEA Annual Report pp.60-72' if there was any way you could e-mail it to me. My e-mail is on my user page. Thanks in advance for your help. Fainites 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)