You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

knb comments on Open thread, Nov. 02 - Nov. 08, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 02 November 2015 10:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (194)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jurily 03 November 2015 03:41:43AM -1 points [-]

So, apparently NLP is pseudoscience, and now I'm confused. Does anyone actually claim

  • Richard Bandler hasn't demonstrated even a single verifiable, undisputable result with his methods, and he's been fabricating things like this for decades?
  • his methods don't lead to his results in a way that matches his predictions?
  • the creator of NLP is not qualified to decide whether or not his methods are NLP?

If there are no claims to any of the above, what exactly was discredited?

Comment author: knb 03 November 2015 06:13:26AM 0 points [-]

Richard Bandler hasn't demonstrated even a single verifiable, undisputable result with his methods, and he's been fabricating things like this for decades?

I think homeopaths and faith-healers could probably dredge up a few convincing-seeming anecdotes as well.

If there are no claims to any of the above, what exactly was discredited?

The wikipedia article you linked to presents numerous meta-analyses in support of the claim that NLP is a pseudoscience. If you want to know what they think they've discredited, read them.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit