New gaming podcast: Hatchet Job Show

[Wrestlevania]

A friend of mine recently launched a Video game podcast, called the Hatchet Job Show. They discuss a decent range of topics and have some very interesting guests, too.

For example: they had the professor on last month, who helped develop Stephen Hawking's original mobility software, talking about user interface design. And they're about to have an interview with Trip "Mr EA/3DO" Hawkins(!) in the next few days, too.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Wrestlevania
Fixed inaccuracies.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'll give it shot.

Also: The Hollywood Saloon!

(For movies.)

[SignorSuperdouche]

I've listened to a few of the podcasts with more interesting sounding topics and it looks pretty promising. I'll certainly be keeping tabs Hatchet Job to see if I get sucked into it.

I'd have to say that this Arun Mehta chap caught my eye more though. I happen to be really into human computer interaction, but even if you're not you should check out this video of some of his work in action. Fascinating stuff.

[Marek]

I'll check this out! Some of the guests sound amazing.

I mean... an NLP practitioner talking about games? Potentially very very interesting!

[Wrestlevania]

I mean... an NLP practitioner talking about games? Potentially very very interesting!

Sean, the host and organiser of the show, is very keen on covering all sorts of diverse and interesting subjects relevant to video games.

Top bloke, too; had some memorable conversations over Live with him and a few of his mates in-game. One of the more surreal moments was when we were trying to help one of the guys decide how to get in touch with this girl he really liked. He'd SMS'd her once or twice, but nothing very flirty or committal. The surreal part was that we were trying to clear a partially built villa of terrorists in Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 at the time... quite bizarre, all huddled together behind a bare concrete wall overlooking the main courtyard, pausing in conversation to lob a grenade or pick off a few bad guys that appeared below us.

Anyway: video games.

[Marek]

Hahaha that's an awesome story.

[Wrestlevania]

Hahaha that's an awesome story.

Heh heh.

Can't actually recall a match we've played together where we haven't discussed something really interesting - more typically games-related - as we went along. That's why I was super-pleased when I discovered he'd started a podcast about such things a little while back.

I just didn't announce it here, in the forums, before now because I didn't want to steal focus from Remo's, Jake's, Nick's, Spaff's and your efforts in resurrecting the mighty Thumbcasts.

[SignorSuperdouche]

an NLP practitioner talking about games? Potentially very very interesting!

Did anyone else think that was the biggest crock of shit they'd heard since dianetics? Clearly NLP has no basis in science whatsoever.

[Marek]

I've listened to half that podcast and the way the guy describes it makes it sound pretty dodgy.

I've never studied NLP closely so there might be an iceberg of shit that I'm not aware of (I suspect there is). I'll say this from experience though: some excellent techniques have come from NLP that, while being pseudoscience, can be really super helpful. Personally I have used techniques like reframing, anchoring, etc. and various other mental exercises in the past and they've helped me set better long-term goals, communicate better (for instance, in presentations), reassess certain assumptions I've had, or help see failures as victories.

[HatchetJob]

A debate! Good good.

I agree that the NLP show is contentious. I'd also agree that its needs robust investigation to class it as related to science.

What I do like about the show is the insight it gives people into the US education system. As Danjo said, the highschool has a set of educational rules and how it, arguably, encourages students to 'play' in a certain way. (THis works treating highschool as a game unto itself, but not as a level.)

Also, I was quite intrigued by the idea of games without winning and losing; how that would be represented. It struck me, after we recorded, that COD4 is a good example of an 'NLP' game - the killcam gives immediate feedback on what a person did wrong.

Of course all games give some kind of immediate fail feedback - falling off a ledge in tomb raider for example. But what COD4 did was clever in that you got the cause of death, bullets, then the method (flanked, for example).

I think that secondary level of feedback in a game could be quite useful and alleviate some players' stress. However it might only be possible in certain genres.

But anyway! Thanks for listening to the show and the feedback. If we were to have the NLP guy on again, I'd probably describe it better at the beginning - curtail the science-y sound bit - and have a more focused theme. While we won't make everyone happy or get everything right with our shows, especially when we have unusual topics, but comments are always useful.

Ta.

[SignorSuperdouche]

I'm not sure if this came across in my first post so to clarify: My problem was not with the techniques described by NLP, but rather the language used to describe them. The use of scientific language implies legitimacy and that the speaker has authority on the subject. I can't help but feel that this is calculated move designed to extract money (self help books, seminars etc) from vulnerable people in exactly the same way that scientology and it's pseudo-scientific jargon does.

At the same time I recognise that it can be useful and clearly works for a lot of people, much in the same way that the four humors were a fairly good basis for medicine before science came along.

[HatchetJob]

I broadly agree. I suppose it's one of the difficulties of hosting a show. What guests do you have on and do you give them credence by having them appear.

[Nachimir]

I mean... an NLP practitioner talking about games? Potentially very very interesting!

Much as NLP has some good ideas (i.e. once shit has been kicked out of the mind, the way forward is to actively build something better rather than just combating problems), it's very corporate and culty in a "pay us all your money for our seminal seminars" kind of way.

As SenorSuperdouche points out, it extracts large amounts of money from people (Weekend conference can have 500 people paying £2000 each. As The Yes Men put it: Wear a suit, cut your hair short, and people will believe just about anything you say). The few people i've known who've got into it have worked shit jobs to save vast amounts of money so they can go to more conferences and workshops... Reminds me of those "Become an Entrepreneur and Get Rich!" courses and DVDs, which avoid pointing out how selling that kind of thing to people at ridiculously jacked up prices is a very good way of making money ¬¬

Also, it can get very shit when someone from NLP or a similar field ends up looking after vulnerable people when clueless about their condition, which can happen on the basis of "Oh, he does something with psychology, let's get him in for a workshop"

Edited November 28, 2008 by Nachimir

[ThunderPeel2001]

Charging people money to help themselves? It sounds a bit like... SCIENTOLOGY

[SignorSuperdouche]

To take the thread back towards the podast for a moment, I've just listened to the episode on multi sensory stimulation and I'm hooked. They had on a fascinating chap from Oxford University, who was great on his own, but then the hosts came up with some really interesting questions for him too. The questions were really the most impressive part for me because I can never think of anything to ask someone like that until it's two weeks or so after the event.

I have no idea where these guests are being pulled from but they are astonishingly good.

[Marek]

Okay, all that stuff you guys are saying about NLP sounds really fucking lame. I kinda got that dodgy vibe a lot from the actual NLP stuff out there and probably avoided it for that reason.

However it would be awesome if just some of the basic techniques could be extracted and repackaged as some kind of Brain Training-esque exercise program, without all the other BS weighing it down, seeing how simple they are and how much they are based on common sense.

Anyway, I might be sidetracking this thread.

[HatchetJob]

I just had a chat with Paul (the NLP chap) and I hope he's going to join the conversation in the thread.

Just so people know, I did an hour's NLP coaching with Paul a few month before recording the show (before the podcast ever existed). It was part of his NLP training.

The time I spent with him was free. We didn't talk about anything to do with money or making money. Also, did coached more people than the training required, again for free.

What's interesting is that when I first met Paul, I raised some of the issues in this thread. The pseudoscience, the lack of evidence and so on. But that doesn't mean the tools aren't useful. They just have to be looked at in a different way, by the person attempting to use them.

I should have posted all this before - would have made life much easier!

[EnEllePee@YouSeeElle]

Why is being obtuse a bad thing? Surely it's better than being acute...

Im the guy speaking as an NLP Practitioner on the Hatchet Job. Sean, peace be upon him, gave me a link to this forum. There's some very interesting feedback here: Lord NLP of Bloomsbury would be very proud. Seriously, it's great to hear what people actually think of NLP.

Ive come to comment as me, not as an NLP practitioner.

Did anyone else think that was the biggest crock of shit they'd heard since dianetics? Clearly NLP has no basis in science whatsoever.

NLP doesnt make many substantive claims about the brain. It doesnt work by making truth claims. In fact the key to using NLP elegantly is recognising its flexibility.

The substantive claims it does make are accepted by psychology (as an academic field) and I guess by biologists. For instance, "The neural pathways for imagination and memory are the same". Nothing too shocking here.

So when you say NLP has no basis in science whatsoever you are wrong. You would be right to say NLP and science cover very different ground. Science and NLP overlap in terms of their subject matter, the human brain, but differ wildly in their approach.

Science asks, "What can we know about the world?" and seeks to accumulate knowledge as best it can (for instance through experiments where different variables are changed).

NLP asks, "What works?". It seeks to understand why some people are happy and others arent, why some peopke are succesful and others arent, why some people are productive and others arent. It's far closer to a social science than a pure science.

If it works it's NLP. One big concept in NLP is the idea of modelling: seeking to understand what succesful people do and think (success as in "I want X, I have X" rather than associations with a highly paid job) and trying to replicate it to get similar results.

I've listened to half that podcast and the way the guy describes it makes it sound pretty dodgy.

I've never studied NLP closely so there might be an iceberg of shit that I'm not aware of (I suspect there is). I'll say this from experience though: some excellent techniques have come from NLP that, while being pseudoscience, can be really super helpful. Personally I have used techniques like reframing, anchoring, etc. and various other mental exercises in the past and they've helped me set better long-term goals, communicate better (for instance, in presentations), reassess certain assumptions I've had, or help see failures as victories.

I have a great little saying, "If it works, it's NLP". Thus your car might be NLP, but London buses certainly arent!

Just kidding. With human behaviour I stand by that claim...

NLP is about studying the human condition really. It's a bit anthropological like that. Nobody's dissing anthropology. There are differences though...

I'm not sure if this came across in my first post so to clarify: My problem was not with the techniques described by NLP, but rather the language used to describe them. The use of scientific language implies legitimacy and that the speaker has authority on the subject. I can't help but feel that this is calculated move designed to extract money (self help books, seminars etc) from vulnerable people in exactly the same way that scientology and it's pseudo-scientific jargon does.

At the same time I recognise that it can be useful and clearly works for a lot of people, much in the same way that the four humors were a fairly good basis for medicine before science came along.

I agree. NLP does not help itself. Here are some of the reasons I think it shoots itself in the foot:

1) It is known by an acronym: NLP. People are suspicious of acronyms.

2) It has a lot of jargon: for instance "metaframes" and long words. This, as you say, seems to be NLP seeking legitimacy for itself. NLP does not need to do this. It should live or die by its strengths and weaknesses not its baffling words. I believe it is good enough to live and more than this, flourish, on its material.

When I speak about NLP using NLP terms and lingo most people turn off. When I speak about the subject matter, success and failure, why people act as they do and happiness, people immediately engage.

I find most people are interested in NLP but not in the jargon.

I will reiterate that NLP is not a science and would be better off being simpler.

Much as NLP has some good ideas (i.e. once shit has been kicked out of the mind, the way forward is to actively build something better rather than just combating problems), it's very corporate and culty in a "pay us all your money for our seminal seminars" kind of way.

As SenorSuperdouche points out, it extracts large amounts of money from people (Weekend conference can have 500 people paying £2000 each. As The Yes Men put it: Wear a suit, cut your hair short, and people will believe just about anything you say). The few people i've known who've got into it have worked shit jobs to save vast amounts of money so they can go to more conferences and workshops... Reminds me of those "Become an Entrepreneur and Get Rich!" courses and DVDs, which avoid pointing out how selling that kind of thing to people at ridiculously jacked up prices is a very good way of making money ¬¬

Also, it can get very shit when someone from NLP or a similar field ends up looking after vulnerable people when clueless about their condition, which can happen on the basis of "Oh, he does something with psychology, let's get him in for a workshop"

You make three points I would like to address:

1) It is corporate and culty. People pay a lot of money to go on seminars. It is all advertising and hype, like dianetics.

2) People become seminar junkies.

3) An NLP practitioner is not in a better place to help vulnerable people than traditional psychologists.

1) First point is that the biggest companies in the City pay large somes for NLP Practitioners to run training/management days. They do this because NLP looks at success and failure, how to get success and how to avoid failure. Big businesses don't care if something has scientific backing or not: they want to see results, the bigger the better, so that they can make the most money possible.

If NLP did not work they would pull the money and invest it in something else.

Secondly, people can spend their money on what they like. If people are willing to pay a lot of money then so be it. You wouldnt hate on someone who bought an Aston Martin.

As an aside, I think most NLP practitoners are bullshit and dont warrant charging 2p for their services.

A good NLP practitoner,of which there are remarkably few ,is life changing. You cant put a price on that.

starting from next year the government will officially monitor all people charging for coaching. This regulation is welcome and in my opinion necessary to uphold the good name of those Practitioners who do genuinely do a good job and those that are dangerous.

I would be for requiring a licence to practice.

2) This point is really interesting to me and I agree with you. Those who enter the world of self-help, because it touched on the human condition and those things most sensitive to us, often become obsessed with self help and neglect to help themselves! This is because it's interesting.

I can see why people get trapped.

One of my values is to help people get results and not entertain them. Im still working out the best way to do things because I dont believe traditional methods of coaching are the best way of getting results.

People are more like to get hooked and read and read and never change anything.

3) From phobias to kids with ADD, NLP has a track record of getting success where traditional methods fail. We live in a world where pharmaceutical companies skew drug results and all but lie in scientific publications to bolster their claims and profits from drugs.

A lot of times drugs are prescribed where they shouldnt be. This is one of the most worrying threats to the scientific spirit at the moment. Google it, it's hit the headlines recently.

At the very least there is an explanadum that needs to be explained: why does NLP get results where traditional methods fail?

Charging people money to help themselves? It sounds a bit like... SCIENTOLOGY

Like a psychologist ...?

Whilst not an NLP Practioner, I highly recommend this highly entertaining talk given by Sir Ken Robinson at a conference full of the world's brightest and boldest minds. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

This for me is brilliant NLP.

[DanJW]

Hi Paul! Thanks for taking the time to come along and post.

I was wondering if you are familiar with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and whether it overlaps at all with NLP? To me the two sound very similar, but CBT is only taught in "pathological" cases.

[Nachimir]

Hello Paul. You respond well

You make three points I would like to address:

1) It is corporate and culty. People pay a lot of money to go on seminars. It is all advertising and hype, like dianetics.

Not all. I read this years ago and quite like it.

1) First point is that the biggest companies in the City pay large somes for NLP Practitioners to run training/management days. They do this because NLP looks at success and failure, how to get success and how to avoid failure. Big businesses don't care if something has scientific backing or not: they want to see results, the bigger the better, so that they can make the most money possible.

If NLP did not work they would pull the money and invest it in something else.

Business leaders are not necessarily wise. See credit default swaps, sub-prime mortgages, mortgage deals for sex on Wall St., the real estate and dot com bubbles, most punditry on the news, business response to piracy in the last decade, copyright term extensions and their resultant stifling of culture, the present state of the American auto industry... some people in charge of stuff are very, deeply reactionary, stupid and inflexible.

This lack of wisdom is especially potent when mixed with hegemony and peer pressure. Companies that have paid for NLP can be just as much seminar junkies as the biggest "loser". That's not to say all of them are.

Likewise, free markets can create some very stupid and screwed up situations. Money and wisdom do not necessarily follow each other.

Secondly, people can spend their money on what they like. If people are willing to pay a lot of money then so be it. You wouldnt hate on someone who bought an Aston Martin.

If they were someone I knew who worked like a dog and maintained a large amount of debt to have an Aston Martin, that's their decision. Nonetheless, I might point out their stupidity to their face

I don't mean to discount NLP entirely. It has some excellent ideas, and I very much agree with you on some of the areas in which it falls flat. I'm a fan of anything that allows people to get a better grip on themselves.

Self-therapy of one kind or another is something I've been interested in, practiced and experimented with for nearly a decade. Most modern self-help books are utter toss with a couple of good ideas buried in a load of fluff. Something like Karen Horney is really unpatronising and fundamental.

Ultimately, I'd be most interested to see an open source form of self-therapy, which is kind of how I think it all started anyway. Talking to each other, writing, or otherwise expressing our problems to work them out and stop them going in circles in our minds, is something people just naturally do. Since psychological defenses are inherently unconscious, even when they're being counterproductive, this kind of natural process doesn't always work. However, I think different forms of cognitive therapy or practice take that and, ideally, amplify it by directing it along highly specific frameworks.

What I've seen of NLP is generally better than most self help (For instance, John Gray, writer of the turgid and neverending Mars and Venus books bought his PhD from the same kind of people that spam hotmail accounts).

As an aside, I think most NLP practitoners are bullshit and dont warrant charging 2p for their services.

I respect you a lot for saying that and what followed. I'm glad to hear about government monitoring, hopefully it will work.

2) This point is really interesting to me and I agree with you. Those who enter the world of self-help, because it touched on the human condition and those things most sensitive to us, often become obsessed with self help and neglect to help themselves! This is because it's interesting.

I can see why people get trapped.

One of my values is to help people get results and not entertain them. Im still working out the best way to do things because I dont believe traditional methods of coaching are the best way of getting results.

Glad to hear that, and yes, it's a really awkward problem. How do you communicate that to people without offending them? Brutal truth seems to be the only antidote to false hope (and I don't mean NLP = false hope, I mean the idea some pick up that reading the books and listening to the speakers is what they need to improve their lives, rather than sheer bloody minded effort, persistence and terrifying, grueling explorations of the unconscious).

My very small and scientifically untenable sample tells me that average students on an introduction to Buddhism course are mortified and react defensively if someone points out they might get attached to Buddhism. The teachers, depending on which school of Buddhism they're from, quite like it when someone does that though

If a figure is standing up publicly it also offers an opportunity for people to follow and idolise. This is something I've seen firsthand in a high control group: I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and it was something that would happen around even slightly charismatic people in positions of oversight (I left them without fuss in my late teens after reading a load of philosophy, humanism, and psychology).

Jargon coupled with hope and public figures raises a lot of red flags for me, because even if an organisation has the right motives, that combo easily sucks in and chews up vulnerable people. It's like the collecting mechanic of a Video game coupled to people's deepest lifelong hopes and insecurities.

3) From phobias to kids with ADD, NLP has a track record of getting success where traditional methods fail.

[...]

At the very least there is an explanadum that needs to be explained: why does NLP get results where traditional methods fail?

Like a psychologist ...?

I don't think it always does, and psychology, too, is not a science. It's had it's many schools, splinter groups, and snake oil theoretical frameworks that have done harm. At the same time, it has helped many.

I'm already very aware of problems with big pharma peddling "solutions" to "problems", and thankful they're not allowed to advertise direct to consumers here in the UK. Some people really need anti-depressants to be okay, hold a job down, etc. Some people are effectively turned into zombies because they've been prescribed the wrong pills, and that process is still largely trial and error. Sucks. I'm also very perturbed by the DSM-IV (and previous versions). A medical model with a bunch of nouns does not apply so well to mental states.

I didn't mean to tar all NLP practitioners with the same brush, but when I see excitement over it, I think it's necessary to inject a dose of scepticism too. Please don't assume I'm arguing from a camp that typically trash talks NLP. I think more introspection and will would make a lot of people happy, which might make the world a better place.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Nachimir

[EnEllePee@YouSeeElle]

Hi Paul! Thanks for taking the time to come along and post.

I was wondering if you are familiar with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and whether it overlaps at all with NLP? To me the two sound very similar, but CBT is only taught in "pathological" cases.

Hi Dan. I really enjoyed recording the show with you so thanks for being a good sport!

Im not familiar with CBT. I've spoken to some CBT practitioners and one of my good friends had some CBT therapy. From what I understand it shares many guiding principles with NLP. I dont know how similar or different it is.

It comes recommended from my friend who got a lot of benefit from it.

I believe that NLP and CBT are substitutes. It is not a case of degree of problem, so it isnt true that NLP is the plaster whilst CBT is the bandage. They are alternatives to treat (?) the same bouts.

If there is a difference then it's that CBT is more for the avoidance of pain ("therapy") whereas NLP can also be used for the advancement of pleasure.

A 15 minute trawl of Google would tell you more than I know about CBT.

As an aside, Im more interested in what NLP can do to take normal (I really hate that word and I hope my meaning is clear) to a place of great happiness rather than taking depressed people to a better place. I dont see myself as being a therapist in any way.

[Nachimir]

As an aside, Im more interested in what NLP can do to take normal (I really hate that word and I hope my meaning is clear) to a place of great happiness rather than taking depressed people to a better place. I dont see myself as being a therapist in any way.

I think every form of therapy eventually hits a wall with this, where progress (subjective as it can be) involves building something good rather than destroying something bad. Third force psychology (60s/70s) strongly focused on this, though also tended to get a bit lost in hippie bullshit too.

[EnEllePee@YouSeeElle]

Business leaders are not necessarily wise. See credit default swaps, sub-prime mortgages, mortgage deals for sex on Wall St., the real estate and dot com bubbles, most punditry on the news, business response to piracy in the last decade, copyright term extensions and their resultant stifling of culture, the present state of the American auto industry... some people in charge of stuff are very, deeply reactionary, stupid and inflexible.

This lack of wisdom is especially potent when mixed with hegemony and peer pressure. Companies that have paid for NLP can be just as much seminar junkies as the biggest "loser". That's not to say all of them are.

Likewise, free markets can create some very stupid and screwed up situations. Money and wisdom do not necessarily follow each other.

If they were someone I knew who worked like a dog and maintained a large amount of debt to have an Aston Martin, that's their decision. Nonetheless, I might point out their stupidity to their face

I don't mean to discount NLP entirely. It has some excellent ideas, and I very much agree with you on some of the areas in which it falls flat. I'm a fan of anything that allows people to get a better grip on themselves.

Self-therapy of one kind or another is something I've been interested in, practiced and experimented with for nearly a decade. Most modern self-help books are utter toss with a couple of good ideas buried in a load of fluff. Something like Karen Horney is really unpatronising and fundamental.

Ultimately, I'd be most interested to see an open source form of self-therapy, which is kind of how I think it all started anyway. Talking to each other, writing, or otherwise expressing our problems to work them out and stop them going in circles in our minds, is something people just naturally do. Since psychological defenses are inherently unconscious, even when they're being counterproductive, this kind of natural process doesn't always work. However, I think different forms of cognitive therapy or practice take that and, ideally, amplify it by directing it along highly specific frameworks.

What I've seen of NLP is generally better than most self help (For instance, John Gray, writer of the turgid and neverending Mars and Venus books bought his PhD from the same kind of people that spam hotmail accounts).

I respect you a lot for saying that and what followed. I'm glad to hear about government monitoring, hopefully it will work.

Glad to hear that, and yes, it's a really awkward problem. How do you communicate that to people without offending them? Brutal truth seems to be the only antidote to false hope (and I don't mean NLP = false hope, I mean the idea some pick up that reading the books and listening to the speakers is what they need to improve their lives, rather than sheer bloody minded effort, persistence and terrifying, grueling explorations of the unconscious).

My very small and scientifically untenable sample tells me that average students on an introduction to Buddhism course are mortified and react defensively if someone points out they might get attached to Buddhism. The teachers, depending on which school of Buddhism they're from, quite like it when someone does that though

If a figure is standing up publicly it also offers an opportunity for people to follow and idolise. This is something I've seen firsthand in a high control group: I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and it was something that would happen around even slightly charismatic people in positions of oversight (I left them without fuss in my late teens after reading a load of philosophy, humanism, and psychology).

Jargon coupled with hope and public figures raises a lot of red flags for me, because even if an organisation has the right motives, that combo easily sucks in and chews up vulnerable people. It's like the collecting mechanic of a Video game coupled to people's deepest lifelong hopes and insecurities.

I don't think it always does, and psychology, too, is not a science. It's had it's many schools, splinter groups, and snake oil theoretical frameworks that have done harm. At the same time, it has helped many.

I'm already very aware of problems with big pharma peddling "solutions" to "problems", and thankful they're not allowed to advertise direct to consumers here in the UK. Some people really need anti-depressants to be okay, hold a job down, etc. Some people are effectively turned into zombies because they've been prescribed the wrong pills, and that process is still largely trial and error. Sucks. I'm also very perturbed by the DSM-IV (and previous versions). A medical model with a bunch of nouns does not apply so well to mental states.

I didn't mean to tar all NLP practitioners with the same brush, but when I see excitement over it, I think it's necessary to inject a dose of scepticism too. Please don't assume I'm arguing from a camp that typically trash talks NLP. I think more introspection and will would make a lot of people happy, which might make the world a better place.

Thanks for replying. I really appreciate intelligent, considered feedback. I love discussing this. Your links were really interesting.

For my benefit and to ensure discussion remains focused I will summarise the key points you made that I want to comment on:

1) Managers of big companies can and do make mistakes. Their faith in NLP doesn't make NLP true or useful. They are as human and as susceptible to becoming self-improvement junkies as the next person (perhaps even more so such is the nature of their job).

2) The future of open-source self-help.

3) Psychology is not a science.

1) This is undoubtedly true. What we cannot doubt is their intention. It would be false, surely, to say that managers intend to misspend company money.

It is also fair to say that top companies attract some very intelligent people to managent roles. Assuming that they act rationally then there is something to be explained. There is no necessary reason to say that NLP is true but it lends weight to the argument. It leaves the person wishing to deny NLP's usefulness the need to turn to substantive arguments against it: "Principle X is wrong because Y reason".

Otherwise your belief that NLP is not useful is irrational.

The above argument rests on the following principle: "If the evidence seems to suggest Outcome X as opposed to Outcome Y, belief in Outcome X is the most rational if there is no reason why Outcome X cannot be the case."

Furthermore, this debate cannot be resolved either way on necessary truths but rather on probabilities.

2) I absolutely agree with you here. I believe the future of self-help lies in an open-source format, in the exchange of ideas and the sharing of experiences.

The most glaring problem is that of quality control.

Needless to say a lot of money and even more Good is to be gained through perfecting such a system.

It is my hope that one day I can perfect such a system.

3) Psychology is a science. To deny this is to make some bold claims about the nature of science.

Psychology rests on repeatable experiments with many variables that can be independtly changed.

The main way this could be challenged is by disputing the quality of the results. Because our brains necessarily have subjective experiences it is questionable to what extent results can be compared. At a basic level, what does it mean when one person says he is very happy (8/10) as compared to another who gives the same analysis. In what way are they having the same experience?

Lights coming up on brain scans dont begin to cover it.

I mean how can we even compare subjective experiences in theory let alone in practice?

I think a great deal of pragmatism has to be involved where consciousness is concerned. We cannot measure thoughts and emotions in the same way we can the acceleration of a cart down a ramp. There are no dials we can read.

The best we can do is ask ourselves how people who have what we want approach life and try to copy these. It just so happens this works. We have to do what works. If this is different for every individual then so be it, we should be encouraged to explore our own unique paths.

It just so happens that there are many links. We are all afterall human.

This is the substance of NLP.

It is not a matter of being dogmatic but being practical. Dogmatism is useless when it comes to subjective minds. This is one of many reasons why I agree with your assertion that an open source self-help community would be the most effective.

Listen, Im super tired now. I'll check back tomorrow. I hope it makes some sense!