= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Reference Points - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (45)
What you are describing is well known in Neuro Linguistic Programming. I'm not super familiar with the terms (yet) but I THINK this is referred to as "chunking". "Submodalities" and "anchoring" might also be relevant.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
I think LW could do very well to import a lot of knowledge from NLP and try to see what's valid and what's not. I've noticed that people here are often reinventing the wheel.
PJ Eby, please chime in on this.
Except when the wheel is, you know, 'bad'. Lesswrong wouldn't accept NLP for normative reasons. That said, I would be reluctant to give NLP 'wheel' status in any case. "Reinvent the swiss army knife" perhaps. :)