Dave - I'm interested in your point about "anecdotal testimony". Aren't anecdotes a key part of Cynefin? And so, doesn't the same lack of authenticity apply to any Cynefin type engagement?

PS I am an NLP sceptic.

Anecdotes are captured by SenseMaker® David, and the way they are signified creates objective data to indicate attitudes, beliefs etc. The anecdotes help explain the statistical data generated by the signification.

I'm not sure how you could confuse that with someone using a personal anecdote to validate a tool such as NLP. It seems that you are just responding to a single word rather than looking at the sentence in which it is contained!

Let me try and explain it another way. With SenseMaker® we could come up with a valid set of conclusions about the beliefs of IBM employees about NLP, but that would make no statement about the validity of those beliefs.

The title of your post reminds me of a talk by Humberto Maturana back in 2001 where he put the distinction "between human" beings and "robots" at the center. Dealing with living systems he did not mean robots in a technical sense.

I would agree with critizizing NLP as pseudo science but not (only) because of what you call phenomenological research. Telling singular(!) stories IS not research. For some (psychological) research questions you need phenomenological methods as one PART of research. Even introspection can be a valuable source for (new) knowledge. But it has to be put in larger contexts, compared with other cases, theories and so on. And, of course, related to respective quantitative research.

Maybe Cronshaw's point could be explored through this quote of value:

"While tacit knowledge can be
possessed by itself, explicit knowledge
must rely on being tacitly understood
and applied Hence all knowledge is
either tacit or rooted in tacit
knowledge. A wholly explicit
knowledge is unthinkable." Michael Polanyi

Aside from the note about anecdotal evidence, Neuro-linguistic-programming is merely a recognition that our mental processes conform to the language we use over time, as well as vice versa. Which anyone could quote any number modern cognitive science research to fully support this.

It is the fringe claims on both sides of NLP that frustrate people.

The fringe claims of NLP are undoubtably problematic, but its the central claims and thesis which are the issue. The face that there is the odd coincidence with real sciences does not mitigate its deserved status as a pseudo science

I agree on NLP, I dont subscribe to the "claims" of NLP, but I don't dismiss it as something which has no clue as to what is happening in the brain (patterns of behavior correlating with patterns of thought).

After how much I read of your work, I would actually be suprised to see you succomb to differing "real" sciences from "pseudo" sciences. The only difference to me is the "real" scientists treat more assumption as truth. Scientists tend to forget the first step of the method... doubt everything... mostly when it comes to their own conclusions.

I am reminded of the work Fernando Flores does regarding "ontological coaching", in the same vein as Maturana and Varela and such... who noticed much of the same coincidences between language processes and thought processes... even so much so that Fernando Flores bases pretty much all of his work solely on how individuals use language.

Just because alchemists may have been misguided in certain ways shouldn't dismiss the interesting work they were capable of really doing, which we just happen to call Chemistry now... and still mistake as objective truth rather than seeing it as merely a symbolic sign system helping us cope with phenomena we contemplate to be permanent over time.

As history shows us, the more something becomes a "science", the more assumption creeps in, and locks people in to a certain world view, which at some point will lead to catastrophic failure. I would look more to metaphors from Art and Music compared to Complex Adaptive Systems than Science and Math. Complex Adaptive Systems are pretty much common sense understandings in Art and Music circles (I am both, and was suprised at how many people in the Cognitive Edge network are actually Engineers... maybe because it wasn't so much of a revelation to Artists and Musicians who live and thrive on chaos and complexity).

On the points everyone has brought up regarding "phenomenological research", and based on the definition of phenomena simply being "that which appears" derived from the Greek... why is there such as disregard for it? I would honestly say that it seems anything BUT truly phenomenological research is merely building off a series of contemplated permanences, or assumed certainties which were arrived at and believed at some point as underlying principles, and now we no longer question their validity, so we build from them.

From your latest presentation, "Life is uncertain...", as well as the Lincoln quote... we should research with those thoughts in mind... and at the least come to terms and recognize that which we take for granted in research.

I have studied SenseMaker through the eyes of Semiotics and Symbolic Interactionism, and it seems very natural in those veins, and I would find it interesting to look further in those areas... keeping the idea of SELF signification in mind, and not allowing OBJECTIVITY to creep in where it shouldn't.

We cannot mistake a person saying he is "mad", as meaning the person is "mad"... but simply as it meaning that a person has said he is "mad". That is difference I see between positivist (quantitative) methods and antipositivist methods (phenomenological / qualitative).

Dave

Thanks for your reply - and I understand your point. Maybe my point really goes to the heart of capturing anecdotes and presenting them as valid conclusion about beliefs/attitudes.

(And I realise I may need to go on a SenseMaker course to get the full answers to this.....so please forgive my questions if these are 'basic' ideas which I have missed).

Firstly, the anecdotes are merely a snapshot in a moment in time, in a fast moving, dynamic world. Are the conclusions then to be used as the basis for some kind of action/intervention/engagement? Does that make sense? Is it vlid to do that? For example if you had been doing SenseMaker work say in August 2001 about attitudes and beliefs on security and Islam, it would be very different if you did it again in October 2001.

Secondly, I wonder how the 'conclusions' are weighted according to the 'depth' of the subject (person) providing the anecdotes. Are 10 IBM employees who joined the company last week and who ave spent 10 minutes Googling NLP weighted the same as 30 year employees who have written peer reviewed papers critiquing NLP (to use your example)?

Finally, it's back to Heisenberg - and my concern that as soon as you start some kind of 'anecdote' intervention then that in itself impacts and influences the subjects (persons) involved in the study. Sure it can be tempered by using 'clean' language - still, I wonder about this.

Mark

Sorry, but I think the distinction between real and pseudo-science is an important one. I think you are falling into the logical error of the creationists here. The fact that evolutionary theory has faults and is being developed does not mean that all theories have equal validity. Creationism is incoherent to the facts, evolution is not - where there are contradictions or anomalies they lead to more investigation. NLP is incoherent to the facts and does not open itself to proper investigation relying on claims that characterise all cults (and NLP is a cult as well). The alchemist argument is spurious; I can respect the work of alchemy that preceded chemistry for many reasons, but to adopt alchemy after chemistry is absurd. You are also making the classic error of confusing the fact that not everything is objective, with the statement that nothing is objective.

David

Yes you do need to go on the course. The objectivity (Mark please note) in SenseMaker® comes from the self-signification of the material which allows statements to be made about the beliefs and values of people. It makes no claim that those beliefs or values are valid or justified, but does show their nature in populations - never for an individual. You seem to be assuming that its the interpretation of the narrative by the researcher which counts, which is not the case. The anecdotes provide an explanation for the statistics. Of course attitudes these change over time, even between August and October in a year. SenseMaker® allows you to measure that change. Not sure why you are looking for a static model here, even IBM acknowledges that cultures can change (although come to think of it then its harder in IBM than many an organisation). As to weighting, like all research methods you need to pay attention to your samples.

Hi Dave and the group

I've been reading some of the cognitive neuroscience work as it relates to leadership, decision making etc and think it's increadibly applicable to the complexity work.

For me, it also validates the success of some of the NLP processes I've used over the years in coaching, leadership development and organisational strategy.

NB I also believe that in engendering change, we need to use the processes that work - including the Cognitive Edge thinking, neuroscience, NLP etc etc etc so long as it fits in the "do no harm and make things better" frame.
Amanda

Sorry Amanda but I disagree. There may be some coincidences between some NLP practices and neuro-science but the underlying theory and claims of NLP are pseudo-science. Given the way NLP developed it picked up many reasonable practices form other sources that I am sure still work. But we have (in my opinion) to base our work on sound theory, not on cult like non-sense/science

Hi Dave.

I wonder if you looked over this blog entry before you posted it.

I ask this because, you claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid, and non-scientific, yet you produce as alleged evidence of the effects of an NLP training course (which you totally fail to identify), nothing but an innaccurate anecdote:

"I remember a good friend and intelligent thinker going off for the three week NLP programme and coming back with his intellect and critical facilities reduced significantly by the indoctrination of the cult."

1. There is NO standard 3 week course. A genuine 3 week NLP-related course would include weekend breaks. Your friend would certainly not be cut off for three solid weeks.
So your friend certainly did NOT go on "the" three week NLP programme.

2. Authentic NLP-related courses do not offer any kind of indoctrination. An NLP-related course involves learning and practicing various NLP-related techniques. If your friend's intellect was in any way compromised then by definition he was not on an authentic course.

3. Having said that, I agree that there are many fake NLP courses around. But that is a whole different problem.
Your friend should have checked out the course and the people running it - just as he would presumably check out anything that was going to take up three weeks of his like.

4. Since NLP is NOT a cult (it's a modelling technique) that allegation is also invalid.

5. How is your story falsifiable - or even checkable?

6. Where's the science in your article?

7. Why do you think it's OK to have one rule for what you can do, and a completely different ruke for what the people you obviously dislike can do?

Nice to see a entry still being read after several months. Yes I did read it Andy and you need to realise that its a blog post. those are by their nature anecdotal. If you want the scientific evidence against NLP have a look at the Wikipedia entry which summarises it well. Now to your points

1. The course my friend went on may well have had weekend breaks, he went away from contact with work colleagues for three weeks. He got a certificate and I am pretty much sure it was as genuine a course as any - of course there is not certifying body for NLP of any repute.
2. That's your view, my view having viewed the material, practice and outcome is that its indoctrination and its is very clearly a cult. I like your logic, if something doesn't fit your POV then it cannot of been a genuine course. Thats an old cult type argument
3. Interesting that there are many fake ones, of course given its a pseudo-science we could argue that all courses are fake.
4. It is a cult, it has all the characteristics of one
5. Its a story of my experience used for a blog posting. Of itself it is not evidence (there is more than enough of that elsewhere).
6. Its a blog, see reference above if you want the science
7. No idea what you are talking about.

Hope that helps ...

Hello David

I don't profess to know everything, and with things I don't understand I am honest about it. It is a little complicated in this case because it is hard to specifically define NLP. However, what I do know is you haven’t had any proper training in NLP and you don't know what you are talking about.

Its true, authentic NLP as proposed by the main founders and developers is really about modeling. Its usually for modeling excellent behavior and that’s really it. The results are often quite amazing, so that may be a little scary for some people to comprehend or accept.

I understand you are promoting a method that is similar but partially competitive with NLP. I don't see NLPers trashing Cynefin.

Just a bit of advice: I think you might want to re-assess your approach to conducting business.

Andrew

You may be interested to know that I haven't been on a course in how to read Tarot Cards or read an astrology chart and I have no intention to do so. Interestingly advocates also assure me that the results would be amazing if I did, but I really feel there would be little value or purpose in doing so. There are far better ways of spending my time

Similarly I don't need to waste time and money on an NLP course when I can read the literature. NLP has failed to demonstrate its scientific basis other than by reliance on self-reporting of effects. Such reporting can also be seen in religious cults and I give them the same credence.

As far as I know nothing we do is directly competitive with NLP. We teach some methods related or organisational development for use by consultants in combination with other methods and tools. We don't teach anything related to the type of focus on individual competence which appears to be the focus of NLP. We also base our methods in authenticated natural science.   

If my work, which includes the Cynefin framework, made the absurd claims that you see in many an NLP practitioner and web site I hope someone would trash it. As far as I am concerned rejecting poorly validated and cult like practices such as NLP, Spiral Dynamics and Sick Stigma represents an important service to the wider community and I intend to continue doing so in this blog which is a personal expression of my own opinions (read the disclaimer).

So thank you for your advise, but in respect of my views of NLP you have said nothing to convince me to reconsider my view. Indeed the comprehension and communication skills displayed in your postings here (and I suspect from your style on WIkipedia) encourage me in that position.

I am not impressed at all. You are selling software that claims to do something that with a little NLP knowhow, you can teach a manager to do on the fly. If NLP is just tarot reading, then you are selling tarot reading software for organizations.

NLP is really useful

Its the best example of pseudoscience for any undergrad who needs to learn about telling the difference. We get presented with NLP as an archetypal pseudoscience at MIT:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfbw8nz3_1hqgpsbf7

It really helps us learn the warning signs. Theres so much trash out there. Its good to know the exemplars. I reckon NLP is the best example of pseudoscientific nonsense on the shelf.