Jump to content

What are scientific explanations of emotive behavior?


Recommended Posts

You might want to narrow this question down a bit. This is sort of the equivalent of a chem question like "what is the scientific explanation of molecules."

 

Also:

NLPt

is a quack pseudoscientific theory. That one, at least, I can explain real quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a bit of a semi-discussion about this on the channel, but I'd like to surface it here. PhDwannabe, you are a professional psychologist (or upcoming) and for you it might be utterly clear why NLPt is pseudoscience bunk, but the answer seems a bit dismissive; No offense, but not everyone knows that immediately -- or even know why you say that.

 

I personally heard in the past that NLP is bunk, but I wasn't sure where and why. If you can provide a (very short) explanation of why you so vehemently oppose it, that will be very helpful for everyone (me included).

 

NLP makes sense on first-read. It might be bunk - in fact, many "theories" that "make sense" are complete bunk -- but the fact it makes sense on first read is a hint of why a lot of people believe in it and follow it. Dismissing it doesn't help convince people that it's really bunk.

 

It's enough if you can just direct us to some useful articles online?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very familiar with NLPt, but what I have heard of it a large problem it has is its use of the patient's subjective opinion of what is wrong with them and how they think they should fix it. It seems to be more of a self-help manual than a clinical style.

 

[edit]This explains the roots of NLPt if you're interested. You'll see that it seems to be implying that our minds 'need' language to create everything we experience. If that were to be true, people who do not have an ability to understand language would no longer be able to experience the world as a human, if that even means anything. This is patently false.[/edit]

Edited by Ringer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very familiar with NLPt, but what I have heard of it a large problem it has is its use of the patient's subjective opinion of what is wrong with them and how they think they should fix it. It seems to be more of a self-help manual than a clinical style.

Fair enough. That doesn't necessarily makes it bunk, though. It just might make the delivery method 'cheap' or 'pop culture'. There's a difference, I think?

 

See physics books from physicists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku and Brian Greene -- they write books that are considered "pop culture", but the physics in them is essentially true. They might be simplified and should not be used in a physics lab or publishable paper, but they're useful in their own way to deliver physics concepts to interested people who didn't spend 20 years studying very complex physical phenomena.

 

My question here, really, is NLP a completely bunk methodology on its own, or is it just a pop-culture way of delivering something that, in essence and in the more complex subject, has merit?

 

[edit]This explains the roots of NLPt if you're interested. You'll see that it seems to be implying that our minds 'need' language to create everything we experience. If that were to be true, people who do not have an ability to understand language would no longer be able to experience the world as a human, if that even means anything. This is patently false.[/edit]

 

I know a little about NLP because my parents used to have books about it. They didn't really consider it "good psychology" and didn't use it for "self help", but the concepts about interpretation of body language in others fascinated them. Quite honestly, it fascinates me too. Some of it makes sense to me; I think some of the books go to extreme ("If you see X, it means Y" never makes sense in psychology) but some give good general points about behaviors and 'tips' about how things look to the outside, etc.

 

I have to say, a lot of those concepts sound like they have SOME underlying merit. They might be oversimplified, and I would never say that they're a "cure" for psychological conditions or for "self help", but is it really totally bunk, or is it just a pop culture simplification of something that makes sense?

 

Again, I'm not judging, I have no idea, I'm simply asking. I know a lot of people reject it off hand, I just am not sure if it's the "pop culture" aspect of it, or the actual theory.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken, moo. Difficult sometimes to describe why something isn't scientific, since that's sort of negative evidence. It's junk because it's had decades of opportunity to empirically validate itself, and it hasn't. I'll just let SkepDic handle this one for me. Read up if you like, but to be honest, NLP is actually a fairly boring variety of pseudoscience. Lot's of wordy pop neuropsych. Yawn. I'd much rather here about the shape-shifting lizards who are running the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you purposefully talking utter gibberish, or do you not even notice? Is English your primary language?

For the record, those are actual, legitimate brain regions--the orbitofrontal cortex and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

For the record, it's still sort of gibberish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you purposefully talking utter gibberish, or do you not even notice? Is English your primary language?

 

I apologize for the tone of the above quote. I didn't mean to be as obnoxious as I came out. What is clear, though, is that a lot of people don't understand quite a large number of your posts. It doesn't seem like you are talking nonsense, it just seems like you are not taking enough care to make yourself clear enough for us to actually participate in the discussions you raise.

 

My question about whether or not English was your primary language was meant to see if the problem might be one of mistranslation.

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you need to try and take better care on phrasing yourself here (and in your other threads) so we can actually understand what you're talking about and discuss it. We can't read your minds and immediately understand what you mean with partial comments or half sentences and jumbled ideas. Instead of talking about the actual idea you propose, we end up spending 4-5 initial posts trying to sift through your words to focus on what it was you meant.

 

My apology for the attitude of the statement. I hope this made things clearer.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.