This is true, but the point I think is correct: NLP is being bottled as snake oil by its marketers. Nobody will say "This [cures acne with no side effects]". What they will say is that it "will change your life". If you write for info on NLP books, or seminars, or whatever, they don’t come back with a cogent list of topics covered, schedule, or similar: they give you a list of positive personal testimonials with no explicit information whatsoever. They don’t indicate it’s anything like a scientific study; they just say "it’s really good, come down.. pay money!" It is not for nothing that at least one person I showed the brochure to declared it was a "cult"; another went even further and actually confused it with Scientology. Even when I wrote to an NLP practitioner they said exactly the same thing. When I challenged them to provide a list of what they had studied in their seminar, they couldn’t do so and refused, instead spouting more positive but unclear testimonial. Then I wrote back and said they sounded like cultists. They asked if I was for real, but they didn’t prove otherwise. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
So questioning the latest popular psychology fad, which almost every reputable study has called into question, is the equivalent of not wanting to change? Do you really accept every thing you’re told, even with lots of evidence to the contrary? What makes NLP so special that it can’t be challenged in the same way all other approaches are?
You do the people here a great diservice by suggesting they don’t have the sense to make their own minds up. Providing a counter postion just provides both sides of the arguement. Do you really have such a problem with a balanced discussion? And if you’ve read the recent threads you’d know I’ve said many times that I encourage people to give NLP a go if it appeals. How this equates to wanting to make sure no one changes you’ll have to clarify.
I would agree, but what you consider reasonable, and what others do is going to differ. And as you say you know little about NLP or psychology then an explantion you are happy with, may not satisfy someone who has learned about these things.
I would agree – you don’t have all the facts.
You say you little about NLP and psychology, and as they are the basis of the arguement it’s hardly likely that you can’t figure out why there’s a negative reaction
Well that’s your view – I actually found *totally* the opposite to be true – which is why I said I didn’t want to continue the discussion and ended it – and I don’t think I’m not alone in this opinion.
*What specifically* have Chris or I ignored? What valid questions and points have we refused to listen to or answer? Most of your argument had to do with whether or not NLP is "true" or "valid". My response to that is NLP doesn’t claim to be true or right or valid, and it’s not concerned with those things. It’s concerned simply with what works and what’s useful. Your only other concern was that NLP might be a money-trap, and that the practitioners may all be charlatans. I’ve answered to those points as well. So I don’t understand how you can keep going on about me not listening to the other side, not being open to criticism, ignoring valid points and questions. If you’re going to continue to insist that I’m doing these things – please be more specific about what it is I’m actually *doing* that you don’t like. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Most NLPers seem to think that an intellectual understanding of NLP is largely pointless – it’s something that has to be experienced. As far as the actual end results go, I certainly agree – you don’t really get a complete sense of what happens in NLP until you watch an actual practitioner doing it and you can observe the affect it has on the "client". I know in my case, I was blown away when I met an NLP practitioner in my area – I’d read a lot of books and things, but actually meeting an NLPer helped to crystallize my understanding. However, I do know that there are a lot of people who demand an intellectual understanding of something before they’re willing to experience it – such as Deanna. That’s the purpose of my web-site. I do agree with you that there is a real dearth of intellectual information about it on the ‘Net – you really have to dig to find it. Dilts’s site is another good one – he’s got an archive of various NLP patterns and techniques online, though there’s nothing that explains the basic NLP constructs. Lee Lady also maintains an archive (or at least I know he used to), but his is really disorganized – it’s more of a mish-mash of various posts he’s made in the past to different psychology newsgroups. So, come to think of it, my own website is the only site I know of that tries to explain NLP from the ground up and give intellectual understanding – and IMO it doesn’t do a very good job. NLP simply has to be experienced to be understood. Maybe that’s why many NLPers don’t bother to try to explain it, they just DO it. On a positive note, though, you don’t have to pay hundreds or thousands to experience it – going to a practitioner and having him/her use it on you doesn’t cost any more than any other kind of therapy. You only have to worry about the cost of the trainings and seminars if you’re in my situation – if you want to become a practitioner yourself. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
This sounds accurate. Even when I ask for NLP information on this ng, I don’t get any. It seems strange that people can’t even explain the process, methods, whatever… Deanna <de…@earthlink.net
http://members.delphi.com/dee33/ http://home.earthlink.net/~dee33/ ICQ# 8408561
What kind of tests did this "National Research Council" do? How did they go about testing and verifying the various claims? What often happens when these various Research Councils try to verify NLP stuff, is that rather than having a trained, certified NLPer who has used the technique in question successfully in the past, demonstrate and teach it to them – they read about it, go off on their own and try it, and when they can’t duplicate the results they go "Well, this NLP stuff doesn’t work." Reading about NLP and experiencing NLP are two completely different concepts. When I first started reading about NLP, I couldn’t immediately duplicate what I read about either. There’s a lot of real-life information that you miss by just reading the books. Anyway, if these Research councils do in fact consult with trained NLPers and get proper demonstrations when they do their research, I have no problem with that. However, if they’re only using an intellectual approach to verify the stuff rather than an experiential one – don’t listen to them. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
But the stuff that’s relevant to this newsgroup is basically about personality, where the "scientific laws" are in their infancy, to say the least. So that’s a bit of a pointless thing to say. On the other hand the charge that the efficacy of the methods should be scientifically tested is a hard one to defend. -Pd — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator
The problem is that there are a lot of ways to be convinced that what you are doing is working.
<stuff on testing & validation, placebo effects, etc.
Yes, I do think if they had some kind of evidence like this it would help. But what are the chances of that happening? Even if I was told that a certain method was used – for example, a method with which I was familiar & knew was validated… Like you say later, they probably got some of this stuff from other fields, but I get so little information on anything, that I can’t even determine that.
None of this is necessary for those who think they’ve been helped by NLP. As far as I’m concerned, if you like it, it’s bitchen, and if you don’t, it sucks (in the words of Frank Zappa). But, when it comes to convincing *third parties*, then more needs to be done.
Yeah, I agree. People can try NLP if they want – I am not stopping them or trying to persuade them not to. I just started this thread to say that I am one of the people who needs more information & evidence. But for some reason, this draws negative reactions (well, mixed reactions, some people are not negative, but a lot are).
Now, I’m certain that some of the techniques used by NLPers, at least the ones similar to those in cognitive and behavioral psychology do work. The problem is that there is such an outlandish variety of claims, many unsubstantiated, that at the very least, quality control is quite poor.
Yeah, this is what I think too. Two times I have read what someone said about a technique used in NLP, & I thought, "Yes, I have tried that technique, & I am ok with it." And it comes from another field, as you say. But it is like pulling teeth to get any kind of information or examples, so that I can evaluate the process, methods, etc myself. Deanna <de…@earthlink.net> or <de…@delphi.com
http://members.delphi.com/dee33/ http://home.earthlink.net/~dee33/ ICQ# 8408561
Response:
Deanna wrote:
I don’t know much about NLP. All I know is, when I started on a.s.s., NLP sounded interesting & worth investigating. Some people said that it helped them make improvements in their lives. And this intrigued me even more. But then I started reading the posts from NLPers arguing with anyone & everyone who was the least bit skeptical or inquiring. And arguing in a not-so-nice manner.
<sighs
It’s really unfortunate that this had to happen, and I wish I
could take back some of the things I said… The problem is, I’ve been on this newsgroup for quite some time now, a lot longer than the newbies, and I talk about NLP a lot in here. So it’s natural for people to respond and talk about it – but, as one would expect, not everyone has learned it as thoroughly as Chris and I, and they don’t always make comments that are accurate or informed. So, I try my best to clarify things. When I get frustrated is when the skeptical types keeps recycling the same complaints and arguments, even when the complaints aren’t 100% accurate and I’ve already posted something to clarify those points. The common ones are "NLP won’t work for X", "NLP isn’t the cure for everything", "NLP can’t replace meds", "NLP isn’t scientific", etc etc. I get very tired of addressing those same points over and over again – and I’m sure those who aren’t involved in the debate are tired of reading it. So, what I’m trying to say is that I didn’t mean to bite anyone’s head off. There were a couple of incidents in particular where a person’s negative attitude totally set me off, and I responded too harshly. I think those people know who they are. I apologize for that. I will still continue to maintain that NLP has something useful for everyone and that it’s worth learning about. I think some careful skepticism is healthy, and I’ll keep doing my best to clarify things for those who are skeptical – but I hope you skeptical types know what sort of complaints NOT to make by now 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Now, when I think about trying something, I look at the people who have tried it before. If they have had positive experiences, it makes a good impression on me. Also, there is sort of a "halo effect" thing going on for me. Or maybe in this case, reverse halo effect. What I mean is, I look at the people who have tried it & see if they exhibit characteristics that I would like to acquire. Like if I go to a yoga class looking for inner peace, & the instructor is a drill sergeant type, well that doesn’t sound like inner peace to me. Likewise, if I see NLPers arguing in a not-very-nice way, I think, "If I try this, will it make me argumentative too?" Even if that characteristic has nothing to do with what they used NLP for, that is how I judge it, and that is how other consumers tend to judge services that they are considering.
This is an unfortunate way of evaluating things, but you’re right – it happens all too often. I’ll try to take that into consideration in the future.
The other thing is… I would tend to buy a service where the sellers convinced me on the merits of the product, or people who tried it convinced me by testimonials.
Er – I would do this, but in the past when I’ve done that people just responded with "NLP isn’t the cure for everything."
But if someone tries to sell me something by replying to my healthy skepticism with, "You are close-minded…"
Again – sorry about that. The statement was really along the lines of "If you dismiss something potentially useful offhand, without even bothering to investigate the claims, THAT is ignorant and closed-minded." From what I can tell, you’re doing your best to investigate the claims – and Wombat has as well. So, you two are high on the open-mindedness scale. I’m still not sure about the other two at this point. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
Eric, The following was posted to a.p.nlp, which, I believe, was taken from Dilts’s homepage: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The basic NLP Allergy Technique has now been applied thousands of times in clinical and training settings and has been effective in changing a vast majority of allergy symptoms. The types of allergies have included those to airborne material, such as smoke, pollen, perfume, etc., to various foods,
and
even in cases involving asthma. In a study done in Salt Lake City (Hallbom & Smith, 1987), for example, thirty two individuals were guided through the allergy pattern for a multitude of allergies, including pollen, smoke and foods. They even treated a person who was sensitive to poison oak, which is
a
kind of an allergy. Out of the thirty people, all but three showed immediate reduction of their symptoms. Most of the people in the study, in fact,
showed a
complete suppression of the allergic reaction immediately after learning the process. A six month follow up revealed that only three of the individuals
who
had responded positively had any recurrence of their allergies. In the Summer of 1994, a controlled clinical test of the Allergy Process was conducted with approximately 120 allergy sufferers. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. David Paul at a hospital in Vail, Colorado. The study showed that the Allergy Process produced significant reduction in the symptoms of many types of allergies, in particular food allergies. Details
of
this study are available from the Institute for Advanced Studies of Health (IASH). For more information, contact: Institute for the Advanced Studies of Health 346 S. 500 E. #200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102-4022 (801) 534-1022 Fax (801) 532-2113
I haven’t checked up on this myself, but if you’re skeptical of the Allergy process, here’s where you can get the information you need. I definitely don’t promote this technique as a *replacement* for more conventional treatments (I’ve got some inhalers for asthma myself), but just as something neat to try or have someone try with you, to see if you can get good results with it. Eric Pepke wrote:
There are many claims by NLPers that seem extraordinary to me and that they don’t seem to back up in ways that I can respect. One example is the Allergy Cure. I don’t want to hear an anecdote about how Mrs. Henry could suddenly be around cats or "I’ve been in the business for years, and I’ve seen it hundreds of times." I want to see serum tests, done by a licensed physician, on a number of different allergens, without telling the patient which is which, before the treatment, after the treatment, and about a month after the treatment.
[snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In my case, I had sort of settled into a "live and let live" frame of mind until they started making medical claims. I’ve seen people who claimed to cure allergies through the mind many times–scientologists, Silva Mind control, acupuncturiste–and it’s all so far turned out to be crap. So, they’re handing out something that, historically, has been a crap worthless solution to a potentially life-threatening problem. Now, maybe by some off chance this one isn’t crap. But, I’m not going to stick my nose in it just in case it might not be crap. Those who claim it isn’t crap have to show some results. I described the experiment protocol earlier. Now, if they wander around in people’s brains talking to them and trying to change their way of thinking, that’s quite ordinary. First of all, it isn’t likely to do too much harm. Second of all, there are already studies that show that psychoanalysis isn’t any better than talking to your bartender, so I don’t think that it’s a big deal to try any new approach. However, I can remember nights as a child in anaphylactic shock where I couldn’t go to sleep because I needed every ounce of my strength just to pump enough air into my lungs to breath. (On the other hand, that’s why I have such a gorgeous chest now.) But seriously, this ain’t no fucking around. NLPer, you think you can make this go away by talking? Prove it. Faith healer sessions usually have some ambulances afterward to take care of the damages of the people who *shouldn’t* have gotten up and walked but had so much adrenaline pumping and hero worship that, for a moment, they could. This is evil. Would you do the same in a seminar? Before you start sticking people’s faces in a cat, show some real proof. And if you go around "curing" people and sticking their faces in a cat without any real evidence that the histamine reaction is altered, then whatever else good you may do, I’m an enemy. I don’t have a lot of allegiances; none for my color, and little for my sex. But I do have an allegiance with asthmatics, a somewhat militant one, and I think that people who think that it’s all in the mind are suffering from a serious lead deficiency.
—–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
Eric Pepke wrote:
This may be a bit too hasty. Sometimes acting like a drill sergeant is the appropriate behavior. This is not specifically a defense of NLP, but a lot of therapists are too nice. They wind up making the client feel good, which involves perpetuating and playing the games that the client is playing. In most cases, this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Breaking out of old behavior patterns is usually unpleasant, and in order to be effective, a therapist needs to be able to induce that unpleasantness.
<nod nod
There are also the claims of what essentially amounts to mental telepathy. Well, there is a prize that I think is somewhere around a million dollars now for someone who can successfully demonstrate, under properly controlled conditions, mental telepathy. It seems curious that the NLPers that are convinced that they can do it haven’t scarfed up the prize, assuming that what they claim is true.
Well, there seem to be two distinct theories on that. One of the things NLPers do a lot is train themselves to have very highly developed senses, excellent sensory acuity. So what often happens is that NLPers will notice things or get "intuitions" about things that others completely miss. If they do this really well, it can often *seem* like they have some kind of sixth sense or ESP. Then there are the renegade NLPers who claim that they have modelled real psychics and have learned how to do real psychic stuff themselves. I tend to favor the first explanation, though if the second one is actually possible, that would be really cool. I’m extremely doubtful about it though. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The problem is that there are a lot of ways to be convinced that what you are doing is working. There are the well known phenomena of suggestion, the placebo effect, and dominance control. The mechanisms of these aren’t well understood, but their characteristics usually are. You get an effect that lasts somewhere between three and five days, occasionally longer, but very seldom more than a month. Then, unless you do it again, one of two things usually happens: either the original condition comes back, or another condition springs up in its place. The latter is what happened, I think, with our friend who replaced shyness with misogyny. So, even with the psychological stuff that you can’t register on a meter, at least there needs to be long-term followup, and the followup needs to be done by someone who is not biased to find for or against NLP. Ideally, it should be by someone who does not know what treatment has been done. Even this isn’t as good as a double-blind test, but it’s hard to imagine how you’d do that with NLP.
Well, from what I have read and heard, there *are* a lot of follow-ups done. Years later people report that their phobia or addiction or allergy or whatever is still gone. I know NLPers want stuff that *works*, not techniques that will have a mere temporary affect. Beyond that, I haven’t read very many of the studies and I don’t have proofs available myself, except for the Allergy technique – more on that in my other post.
None of this is necessary for those who think they’ve been helped by NLP. As far as I’m concerned, if you like it, it’s bitchen, and if you don’t, it sucks (in the words of Frank Zappa). But, when it comes to convincing *third parties*, then more needs to be done. Now, I’m certain that some of the techniques used by NLPers, at least the ones similar to those in cognitive and behavioral psychology do work. The problem is that there is such an outlandish variety of claims, many unsubstantiated, that at the very least, quality control is quite poor.
Yes, I agree.
There’s no point in pointing out that these defects are shared by most other forms of talking therapy as well. There have already been plenty of studies to show that traditional psychotherapy is no more effective than talking to a friend, for example.
<nod nod
However, NLPers are claiming something better and more effective, and even if the poor quality control is universal, this amounts to an "everyone else is doing it" argument.
Huh? —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
Wombat <wom…@wombat-towers.demon.co.uk
wrote:
: "Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP’s outmoded view of : the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately : boils down to crude analogies. NLP basks in effusive testimonials, but : the National Research Council could unearth no hard evidence in its : favour." : International Journal of Mental health. Okay, see, that’s fine. Not that I necessarily understand some of the terminology used, as I said, I know next to nothing about psychology, neurology, or NLP for that matter. I suppose the whole distilled essence of my point (or at least, the point that I was trying to make, or at the very VERY least the point that I THOUGHT I was trying to make 
was that if it works for some people, hey, it’s cool, let it work for those people. Same thing with meds, or even illegal drugs. None of it’s inherently good or bad. –Nathan (Or something. I really don’t have any place in this discussion; I just have difficulty keeping my mouth shut. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Kinslayer Dragon | "All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one -==(UDIC)==- | memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow satan | and the Breaking of the World. And him they named @csd.uwm.edu | Dragon." —-Eye of the World ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Response:
Deanna wrote:
My point with the post was: don’t blame people for not buying into NLP. Take a look at how you are selling it & how that could be improved.
okay,
Now, your comments about close-minded people who don’t investigate NLP… That probably is similar to flexibility/rigidity above. But I don’t think that is the problem. I think it is more a combination of the risk taking & ambiguity tolerance things going on in most cases. People are seeking information & are not willing to take the risk unless there is some clarification as to what NLP is all about.
The problem is, NLP is not something that I can just sit you down and teach you in a reasonable amount of time. It’s a *huge* – and ever-growing – body of information; information about models and constructs, techniques, hints, tips, observations, patterns, stories… and all that information can be organized and used in any number of ways. That’s why I protest when people go "NLP won’t work for this" or "Marc’s going to use NLP on me" – as if it’s one process, one technique or set of techniques. I can talk about specific issues, such as techniques or models – but that’s not going to give you the full picture. In fact, nobody really knows the full picture, because NLP is always growing. People are out there using the information and discovering neat new things all the time, and it’s impossible to keep track of it all. Hell – the information I know is at *least* 8 or 10 years old, and I have no idea what more they’ve accomplished in that time (except for Bandler creating "DHE").
When I ask questions about NLP, I want to know what the process is. Not just what the results are. Like, if I was to be NLPed, you really have to describe the whole experience to me, I’m not just going to go in there & let you work your magic.
Again – it really depends. Every NLPer has their own style. With a lot of them, it’s like having a regular conversation with a friend. You won’t be able to tell that they’re doing "NLP" on you. Whatever NLP concepts they’re using, they don’t talk about them explicitly – they just use them. As an example, I remember reading about Leslie Cameron-Bandler working with an overweight woman, and she helped her change a lot of limiting beliefs about her body and things – just by talking to her, having a regular conversation. You could not tell that Leslie was using NLP. (Which is yet *another* reason why I protest to people going "I’m going to try NLP…") With others, there’s a lot of overlap with hypnosis. An NLPer might do some trance stuff with you, if he felt it appropriate. NLP picked up a lot of stuff on hypnosis by modelling Milton Erickson – a well-renowned and respected clinical hypnotherapist. Other times, it’s very mechanical. An NLPer might work directly with you with rep systems and submodalities and timelines, which are the constructs that are more unique to NLP. This is usually the approach I use online, since I can’t be there face-to-face with people to observe all their non-verbal cues and things. So I do a lot of "Is there an image, or a sound? Is it bright or dim, big or small, clear or unclear", etc etc. I ask a LOT of questions (as you know ) and then give people instructions on what to do in their heads in order to change something.
Like, how do you define the problem?
We tend to define "problems" as the "negative" states people go into in response to something, the states where people don’t have choice and flexibility.
Then what do you do – look at all the possible solutions of techniques & pick something? Like you say, "NLP is not a set of techniques." Ok, then, what do you do when you are NLPing someone, if not using techniques?
Wow, what a big question. NLP *does* have a large (and ever-growing) "set of techniques", but I want to stress that those techniques are not NLP itself. The techniques are arrived at by a) modelling people (such as Erickson and Virginia Satir), and b) experimenting with the basic models and constructs that NLP defines, such as rep systems and submodalities and anchoring. "Rep systems" basically just means your senses, but used internally, like when you’re "visualizing" or having an internal dialogue with yourself, or going back into some memory and recalling how it felt, etc etc. "Submodalities" are the qualities of your internal images and sounds and dialogues and feelings – ie size, brightness, clarity, distance, volume, pitch, tempo, intensity, temperature, etc etc etc. (I think Bandler has identified 64 of these in total. Whew!) "Anchors" are basically just reminders of mental states. If you’re experiencing some mental State with some intense emotions or something, and I reach over and touch you on the shoulder in a distinct way, then the idea is, you associate that State with that touch. If I then touch you on the shoulder in the same way later on, it’ll make you recall that state again (assuming I did the anchoring right). It’s straight Pavlovian conditioning. So if you come in for "NLP" treatment, the basic idea is, I observe you *very* carefully (or, if we’re online, I ask a lot of questions and guess a lot ) and I gather information about how you create the problem state, what the mental processes are, etc etc. Then, I give you an intervention based on that. So if I find, for example, that your process for feeling anxiety is to make a big, bright, vivid picture of yourself failing or something bad happening in the future, and then having a loud, insistent internal dialogue with all kinds of posthypnotic suggestions ("I can’t do this, I’ll never make it, I’ll just fail again, what is wrong with me" etc etc) and then feeling the phobic, fight-or-flight sensations in your body – I can then come up with all kinds of interventions to give you. I could get you to change the submodalities or the content of the image and dialogue, so that it looks and sounds silly and makes you laugh rather than scared. I could elicit your process for feeling safe and confident and then make the first one just like that. I could do any number of things. And that’s just Strategies, the behavioural level. There’s lots of other stuff for working with Beliefs, and other higher-level problems.
Sometimes when I ask questions like this, I get answers that to me are really vague. Then you might think to yourself "I told her everything she wants to know, now if she doesn’t buy into NLP it is her fault." And I am thinking, "He has told me squat! I can never get any information on this stuff!"
Well, what I just gave you is very explicit information. And, all that same information is at my web-site – so you can’t say I don’t provide information for people when they ask.
What I am saying is, I need some comfort level as to what will go on in an NLP session, & I never get enough information to achieve that comfort level. And I also would like to know by what mechanism things are being changed, & I might be able to infer that by knowing more about the change process.
Okay – the explicit stuff above is *one* process I might use. Of course, if that stuff’s too weird or it scares you, we could go with anything you like. If you prefer a lot of metaphorical stuff with the "parts" of your mind and things, I do that too. Or, if you’d like to just have a conversation with a friend (with the outcome of changing in mind), I do that too (though I’d be using some NLP principles without talking about them explicitly). See – it’s all open-ended. NLP looks at all the different forms of therapy and integrates what it finds useful. Freudian/TA "parts" stuff, cognitive stuff, hypnotherapy, Gestalt therapy… it’s all in there.
Another point: Some people jump right on the NLP bandwagon & that is fine. Maybe they are more able to take risks & can tolerate ambiguity more than I can. But you seem to praise those people & insult the rest & it can be very irritating.
Nononono – I only insult the people who want to change but don’t even bother to investigate all their options. You’re investigating it – you’re okay in my book
Plus, some people want to take the time to understand things & not just have things done to them, and I think that can be good.
Yes, that’s reasonable. That’s why I wrote up my web-site, which has all the technical information (though it’s in dire need of an update). The URL, in case you missed it, is www.golden.net/~mmeunier/shyness/
One thing that bugs me is that it seems like one person starts asking about NLP then the group of "NLP Defenders & Attackers" shows up to beat the poor person senseless. This doesn’t seem constructive.
I react very aggressively toward people who try to drag it through the mud ("NLP is quackery!" "NLP is a money-making scam!" "NLPers are just charlatans!"). Other than that, I try to answer the questions fairly and thoroughly. I don’t mean to give the impression that I’m "beating you senseless", if that’s the impression people get from me.
When I get frustrated is when the skeptical types keeps recycling the same complaints and arguments, even when the complaints aren’t 100% accurate and I’ve already posted something to clarify those points. I read those posts & think that I’ve learned a little more, but don’t always feel like things have been clarified. Actually, maybe that is not what I mean. Clarify… Maybe it is that things are somewhat clarified, but not totally, and there isn’t always agreement or complete understanding between the parties.
Feel free to ask about anything you don’t understand. That’s what Chris and I are here for. If I don’t give a thorough enough answer, ask for more. I don’t mind. —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
Midge:
The best explanation I can come up with is that they really *don’t* want to change, and what’s even worse, they want to make sure nobody else does either.
Can’t people investigate claims & learn about it before they try it? Why do all the people who seek information get shot down as "they really dont want to change?" Do you try every new thing that comes along before investigating it & feeling comfortable with the ideas? Deanna <de…@earthlink.net
or <de…@delphi.com
http://members.delphi.com/dee33/ http://home.earthlink.net/~dee33/ ICQ# 8408561
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Nathan Louis Salzman wrote:
Marc Meunier <mmeun…@golden.net wrote: <clipped : When I get frustrated is when the skeptical types keeps recycling the : same complaints and arguments, even when the complaints aren’t 100% : accurate and I’ve already posted something to clarify those points. The : common ones are "NLP won’t work for X", "NLP isn’t the cure for : everything", "NLP can’t replace meds", "NLP isn’t scientific", etc etc. : I get very tired of addressing those same points over and over again – : and I’m sure those who aren’t involved in the debate are tired of : reading it. Here’s the crux of it. With all those above arguments/complaints, never once have I observed them to be in direct contradiction to a claim that you have made about NLP. For example, "NLP won’t work for X." Fine, all well and good. I think I have noticed on some occasions your response being something along the lines of, "Perhaps not, but there are some people that have had positive results regarding X with the use of NLP." Admittedly, this must be taken at hearsay value from you, but that still does not necessarily mean that you are saying, "No, you’re wrong, NLP works on every occasion for every instantiation of X." Same thing with, "NLP isn’t the cure for everything." You seem to say in response to that, "I’m not claiming it is, but it has helped people in the past with some things, and it may be able to help you with some things, so it might be worth your while to try it out." And again, this does not, to me, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, seem to imply that you are trying to say that it IS a cure for everything, which is perfectly reasonable, IMO.
Thanks Nathan – this is all right on the money.
Okay. I think that the comments about ‘close-mindedness’ come into play when healthy skepticism is not swayed by reasonable information. My take on this whole NLP thing, and maybe I don’t have all the facts, is that Marc is trying to help people, and is doing so by stating, "Hey, I’ll try to help you with NLP, which has worked well for myself and other people, and the only thing you need to do is invest a little time. And if it doesn’t work, fine, I’m sorry I couldn’t help you."
Again right,
The general reaction to that seems to negative, which is something that I can’t figure out. Wombat in particular seems to be rather vehement in his position, totally ignoring what I have considered to be valid questions and points from the other side (and I know next to nothing about NLP and psychology both), which is not, in my opinion, a particularly positive way of conducting a discussion. In fact, were I in Marc’s position, I would find it provocative (which seems to be the case).
Bingo! You’re very perceptive, Nathan —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
I don’t know much about NLP. All I know is, when I started on a.s.s., NLP sounded interesting & worth investigating. Some people said that it helped them make improvements in their lives. And this intrigued me even more. But then I started reading the posts from NLPers arguing with anyone & everyone who was the least bit skeptical or inquiring. And arguing in a not-so-nice manner. Now, when I think about trying something, I look at the people who have tried it before. If they have had positive experiences, it makes a good impression on me. Also, there is sort of a "halo effect" thing going on for me. Or maybe in this case, reverse halo effect. What I mean is, I look at the people who have tried it & see if they exhibit characteristics that I would like to acquire. Like if I go to a yoga class looking for inner peace, & the instructor is a drill sergeant type, well that doesn’t sound like inner peace to me. Likewise, if I see NLPers arguing in a not-very-nice way, I think, "If I try this, will it make me argumentative too?" Even if that characteristic has nothing to do with what they used NLP for, that is how I judge it, and that is how other consumers tend to judge services that they are considering. The other thing is… I would tend to buy a service where the sellers convinced me on the merits of the product, or people who tried it convinced me by testimonials. But if someone tries to sell me something by replying to my healthy skepticism with, "You are close-minded…" Well, it doesn’t matter whether I am close-minded or open-minded at this point – you just lost a sale. You don’t try to sell a service by attacking the prospective buyer for their doubts! They may have initial doubts, & are just gathering info at this stage. But if you let them think about it more & listen to what others have to say, they may come around later. So what I am saying is, go ahead & lash out at me for this post. I can’t anticipate the replies – surprise me! :) Deanna <de…@earthlink.net
or <de…@delphi.com
http://members.delphi.com/dee33/ http://home.earthlink.net/~dee33/ ICQ# 8408561
Response:
On 31 Mar 1998 17:23:01 GMT, in alt.support.shyness Nathan Louis Salzman <sa…@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu
wrote:
[snippage]
Okay. I think that the comments about ‘close-mindedness’ come into play when healthy skepticism is not swayed by reasonable information. My take on this whole NLP thing, and maybe I don’t have all the facts, is that Marc is trying to help people, and is doing so by stating, "Hey, I’ll try to help you with NLP, which has worked well for myself and other people, and the only thing you need to do is invest a little time. And if it doesn’t work, fine, I’m sorry I couldn’t help you."
I have to say I find myself nodding my head in agreement over most all of your posts.. I’m nodding once again. Some time ago, I sort of bounced an idea around in here regarding using #shyroom as a place to have workshops. The initial idea was to come up with a list of books, and we’d post which book we were going to read then we’d discuss it in #shyroom. We decided to start with Marc’s NLP site instead of a book, since it was readily accessible to all, and I asked him via email to please come to the workshop since he could address questions about the site. Well the idea really took off, and I think Marc and NervousSystems are doing some excellent things in the workshops. He’s providing online, realtime help for shy people, and it costs them nothing to try it out.
The general reaction to that seems to negative, which is something that I can’t figure out.
Interesting isn’t it? When provided with an easily accessible avenue for help they try as hard as they can to discredit it. They are trying *really* hard with the workshops because there are very few excuses one can come up with to *not* try it if one truly wants to make an effort to change. The best explanation I can come up with is that they really *don’t* want to change, and what’s even worse, they want to make sure nobody else does either.
Wombat in particular seems to be rather vehement in his position, totally ignoring what I have considered to be valid questions and points from the other side (and I know next to nothing about NLP and psychology both), which is not, in my opinion, a particularly positive way of conducting a discussion. In fact, were I in Marc’s position, I would find it provocative (which seems to be the case).
If I were in Marc’s position I’d probably have said "screw it, it’s not worth the aggravation" long ago. I could hardly blame him.
Anyway, my whole attitude on the thing is not at all influenced by any of the factors you mentioned. My outlook is thus: I have a problem. I want to fix that problem or at least reduce its negative impacts on my life. I have observed opportunities for potential methods to do so, and have tried a couple. The ones I have tried have, so far, not worked to my satisfaction. I will therefore continue to try new things, especially if theer is a minimum of risk involved. NLP seems to be a valid new thing to try. Therefore I will try NLP.
Eminently reasonable attitude IMO. [snippage] -Midge — For more information about this service, send e-mail to: h…@anon.twwells.com — for an automatically returned help message ad…@anon.twwells.com – for the service’s administrator ano…@anon.twwells.com — anonymous mail to the administrator
Response:
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Deanna wrote:
Now, your comments about close-minded people who don’t investigate NLP… That probably is similar to flexibility/rigidity above. But I don’t think that is the problem. I think it is more a combination of the risk taking & ambiguity tolerance things going on in most cases.
In my case, I had sort of settled into a "live and let live" frame of mind until they started making medical claims. I’ve seen people who claimed to cure allergies through the mind many times–scientologists, Silva Mind control, acupuncturiste–and it’s all so far turned out to be crap. So, they’re handing out something that, historically, has been a crap worthless solution to a potentially life-threatening problem. Now, maybe by some off chance this one isn’t crap. But, I’m not going to stick my nose in it just in case it might not be crap. Those who claim it isn’t crap have to show some results. I described the experiment protocol earlier. Now, if they wander around in people’s brains talking to them and trying to change their way of thinking, that’s quite ordinary. First of all, it isn’t likely to do too much harm. Second of all, there are already studies that show that psychoanalysis isn’t any better than talking to your bartender, so I don’t think that it’s a big deal to try any new approach. However, I can remember nights as a child in anaphylactic shock where I couldn’t go to sleep because I needed every ounce of my strength just to pump enough air into my lungs to breath. (On the other hand, that’s why I have such a gorgeous chest now.) But seriously, this ain’t no fucking around. NLPer, you think you can make this go away by talking? Prove it. Faith healer sessions usually have some ambulances afterward to take care of the damages of the people who *shouldn’t* have gotten up and walked but had so much adrenaline pumping and hero worship that, for a moment, they could. This is evil. Would you do the same in a seminar? Before you start sticking people’s faces in a cat, show some real proof. And if you go around "curing" people and sticking their faces in a cat without any real evidence that the histamine reaction is altered, then whatever else good you may do, I’m an enemy. I don’t have a lot of allegiances; none for my color, and little for my sex. But I do have an allegiance with asthmatics, a somewhat militant one, and I think that people who think that it’s all in the mind are suffering from a serious lead deficiency. (Sorry about the person change, Deanna, but I didn’t think it avoidable). -Eric
Response:
In article <6fr9ah$3j…@uwm.edu
,
Nathan Louis Salzman <sa…@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu
wrote:
<snip
It’s like finding a piece of alien technology that does not necessarily act according to what we know about reality, yet it still cures acne with no side effects. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey, don’t use that, it doesn’t follow what we know to be scientific laws!" Then those
^^^^^^^^^^^^
who have cured their acne with said device respond, "So what, it works, don’t it?" –Nathan (Just as a really goofy example.)
Goofy?! That was great! People are always so sure that they know and that their experience must be right. They don’t stop to consider that there may be something outside their experience that may be useful. Gerald —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Response:
In article <6fr9ah$3j…@uwm.edu
, Nathan Louis Salzman
<sa…@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu
writes It’s like finding a piece of alien technology that does not necessarily act according to what we know about reality, yet it still cures acne with no side effects. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey, don’t use that, it doesn’t follow what we know to be scientific laws!" Then those who have cured their acne with said device respond, "So what, it works, don’t it?"
"Though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP’s outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies. NLP basks in effusive testimonials, but the National Research Council could unearth no hard evidence in its favour." International Journal of Mental health.
Response:
Marc I apologize ahead of time for the paraphrasing & putting-words-into-your-mouth in some of the examples below… :) My point with the post was: don’t blame people for not buying into NLP. Take a look at how you are selling it & how that could be improved. If all these people are having the same reactions, it probably is not them, but something else. I think it would help if you read some things on Resistance to Change, Adoption of Innovations, stuff like that. It would help you understand why people resist, & you could find ways to better target the people who would like to change. Because you know most of the people on here *want* to change. There are antecedents to readiness for change which include group forces, perception of need, and also personal characteristics such as flexibility/rigidity, tolerance of ambiguity, risk taking, need for variety, trust, insecurity/self-concept. Now, your comments about close-minded people who don’t investigate NLP… That probably is similar to flexibility/rigidity above. But I don’t think that is the problem. I think it is more a combination of the risk taking & ambiguity tolerance things going on in most cases. People are seeking information & are not willing to take the risk unless there is some clarification as to what NLP is all about. (low risk- taking & low ambiguity tolerance are not necessarily bad – they protect us from making a lot of stupid choices. Even though they can stop us from trying useful new things) When I ask questions about NLP, I want to know what the process is. Not just what the results are. Like, if I was to be NLPed, you really have to describe the whole experience to me, I’m not just going to go in there & let you work your magic. Like, how do you define the problem? Then what do you do – look at all the possible solutions of techniques & pick something? Like you say, "NLP is not a set of techniques." Ok, then, what do you do when you are NLPing someone, if not using techniques? Sometimes when I ask questions like this, I get answers that to me are really vague. Then you might think to yourself "I told her everything she wants to know, now if she doesn’t buy into NLP it is her fault." And I am thinking, "He has told me squat! I can never get any information on this stuff!" Most of the testimonials I hear on here talk about what results they have achieved. But only rarely do I hear about what happens during the process of being NLPed. When I have heard of some of the techniques, I have thought, "Oh, I’ve tried that I I think it is a good method." So for you to say, "NLP is not about techniques, it is a way of thinking… We can’t limit our thinking by concentrating on techniques." What I am saying is, I need some comfort level as to what will go on in an NLP session, & I never get enough information to achieve that comfort level. And I also would like to know by what mechanism things are being changed, & I might be able to infer that by knowing more about the change process. can’t I get some answers before trying it out? Another point: Some people jump right on the NLP bandwagon & that is fine. Maybe they are more able to take risks & can tolerate ambiguity more than I can. But you seem to praise those people & insult the rest & it can be very irritating. Plus, some people want to take the time to understand things & not just have things done to them, and I think that can be good. SO my points are: – think/learn about why people resist change – the reasons people resist may not be what you think they are (e.g., not necessarily close-minded) – I personally need more info on the process & (gasp!) techniques – Intent does not always match results. E.g., you think you give people the info they want, but they don’t always feel they are receiving it. Other comments:
<sighs It’s really unfortunate that this had to happen, and I wish I could take back some of the things I said…
You can! I have a poor memory. :) One thing that bugs me is that it seems like one person starts asking about NLP then the group of "NLP Defenders & Attackers" shows up to beat the poor person senseless. This doesn’t seem constructive. <snip
So, I try my best to clarify things. When I get frustrated is when the skeptical types keeps recycling the same complaints and arguments, even when the complaints aren’t 100% accurate and I’ve already posted something to clarify those points.
I read those posts & think that I’ve learned a little more, but don’t always feel like things have been clarified. Actually, maybe that is not what I mean. Clarify… Maybe it is that things are somewhat clarified, but not totally, and there isn’t always agreement or complete understanding between the parties.
and I’ll keep doing my best to clarify things for those who are skeptical – but I hope you skeptical types know what sort of complaints NOT to make by now
LOL! I’ll let you get by with this one for now. :)
Even if that characteristic has nothing to do with what they used NLP for, that is how I judge it, and that is how other consumers tend to judge services that they are considering. This is an unfortunate way of evaluating things, but you’re right – it happens all too often. I’ll try to take that into consideration in the future.
Well, the halo effect is a heuristic that simplifies information processing for people, otherwise they would go into overload. So maybe unfortunate, but human nature. Deanna <de…@earthlink.net
or <de…@delphi.com
http://members.delphi.com/dee33/ http://home.earthlink.net/~dee33/ ICQ# 8408561
Response:
Deanna <de…@earthlink.net
wrote:
<clipped
: for this post. I can’t anticipate the replies – surprise : me! :) Okay. I think that the comments about ‘close-mindedness’ come into play when healthy skepticism is not swayed by reasonable information. My take on this whole NLP thing, and maybe I don’t have all the facts, is that Marc is trying to help people, and is doing so by stating, "Hey, I’ll try to help you with NLP, which has worked well for myself and other people, and the only thing you need to do is invest a little time. And if it doesn’t work, fine, I’m sorry I couldn’t help you." The general reaction to that seems to negative, which is something that I can’t figure out. Wombat in particular seems to be rather vehement in his position, totally ignoring what I have considered to be valid questions and points from the other side (and I know next to nothing about NLP and psychology both), which is not, in my opinion, a particularly positive way of conducting a discussion. In fact, were I in Marc’s position, I would find it provocative (which seems to be the case). Anyway, my whole attitude on the thing is not at all influenced by any of the factors you mentioned. My outlook is thus: I have a problem. I want to fix that problem or at least reduce its negative impacts on my life. I have observed opportunities for potential methods to do so, and have tried a couple. The ones I have tried have, so far, not worked to my satisfaction. I will therefore continue to try new things, especially if theer is a minimum of risk involved. NLP seems to be a valid new thing to try. Therefore I will try NLP. Personally, I don’t see what is so difficult about that thought process, regardless of what else has gone on in various discussions about NLP. –Nathan (My take.) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Kinslayer Dragon | "All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one -==(UDIC)==- | memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow satan | and the Breaking of the World. And him they named @csd.uwm.edu | Dragon." —-Eye of the World ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Response:
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Deanna wrote:
Also, there is sort of a "halo effect" thing going on for me. Or maybe in this case, reverse halo effect. What I mean is, I look at the people who have tried it & see if they exhibit characteristics that I would like to acquire. Like if I go to a yoga class looking for inner peace, & the instructor is a drill sergeant type, well that doesn’t sound like inner peace to me. Likewise, if I see NLPers arguing in a not-very-nice way, I think, "If I try this, will it make me argumentative too?" Even if that characteristic has nothing to do with what they used NLP for, that is how I judge it, and that is how other consumers tend to judge services that they are considering.
This may be a bit too hasty. Sometimes acting like a drill sergeant is the appropriate behavior. This is not specifically a defense of NLP, but a lot of therapists are too nice. They wind up making the client feel good, which involves perpetuating and playing the games that the client is playing. In most cases, this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Breaking out of old behavior patterns is usually unpleasant, and in order to be effective, a therapist needs to be able to induce that unpleasantness. That doesn’t necessarily apply to arguments here, about which you have a good point. But, in a therapeutic environment or any sort of teaching environment, one occasionally needs to be harsh. Of course, the good teachers are the ones who command respect rather than badger by intimidation. Furthermore, the system involves rewards as well.
The other thing is… I would tend to buy a service where the sellers convinced me on the merits of the product, or people who tried it convinced me by testimonials. But if someone tries to sell me something by replying to my healthy skepticism with, "You are close-minded…" Well, it doesn’t matter whether I am close-minded or open-minded at this point – you just lost a sale.
I agree with this. There are many claims by NLPers that seem extraordinary to me and that they don’t seem to back up in ways that I can respect. One example is the Allergy Cure. I don’t want to hear an anecdote about how Mrs. Henry could suddenly be around cats or "I’ve been in the business for years, and I’ve seen it hundreds of times." I want to see serum tests, done by a licensed physician, on a number of different allergens, without telling the patient which is which, before the treatment, after the treatment, and about a month after the treatment. There are also the claims of what essentially amounts to mental telepathy. Well, there is a prize that I think is somewhere around a million dollars now for someone who can successfully demonstrate, under properly controlled conditions, mental telepathy. It seems curious that the NLPers that are convinced that they can do it haven’t scarfed up the prize, assuming that what they claim is true. The problem is that there are a lot of ways to be convinced that what you are doing is working. There are the well known phenomena of suggestion, the placebo effect, and dominance control. The mechanisms of these aren’t well understood, but their characteristics usually are. You get an effect that lasts somewhere between three and five days, occasionally longer, but very seldom more than a month. Then, unless you do it again, one of two things usually happens: either the original condition comes back, or another condition springs up in its place. The latter is what happened, I think, with our friend who replaced shyness with misogyny. So, even with the psychological stuff that you can’t register on a meter, at least there needs to be long-term followup, and the followup needs to be done by someone who is not biased to find for or against NLP. Ideally, it should be by someone who does not know what treatment has been done. Even this isn’t as good as a double-blind test, but it’s hard to imagine how you’d do that with NLP. None of this is necessary for those who think they’ve been helped by NLP. As far as I’m concerned, if you like it, it’s bitchen, and if you don’t, it sucks (in the words of Frank Zappa). But, when it comes to convincing *third parties*, then more needs to be done. Now, I’m certain that some of the techniques used by NLPers, at least the ones similar to those in cognitive and behavioral psychology do work. The problem is that there is such an outlandish variety of claims, many unsubstantiated, that at the very least, quality control is quite poor. There’s no point in pointing out that these defects are shared by most other forms of talking therapy as well. There have already been plenty of studies to show that traditional psychotherapy is no more effective than talking to a friend, for example. However, NLPers are claiming something better and more effective, and even if the poor quality control is universal, this amounts to an "everyone else is doing it" argument. It needs to be pointed out, though, that this attitude seems to be in the minority. Considering the success of the Jimmy Swaggarts and the Robert Tiltons of the world, there seem to be plenty of people who will give out money gladly for less. The consulting firms will never go broke selling subliminal message devices and management training seminars to companies that claim not to be able to afford to pay employees a decent wage, and anybody who claims to have invented a carburetor that gives 500 miles to the gallon, only the Oil Companies Won’t Let Him Sell It, will have plenty of investors. -Eric
Response:
Marc Meunier <mmeun…@golden.net
wrote:
<clipped
: When I get frustrated is when the skeptical types keeps recycling the : same complaints and arguments, even when the complaints aren’t 100% : accurate and I’ve already posted something to clarify those points. The : common ones are "NLP won’t work for X", "NLP isn’t the cure for : everything", "NLP can’t replace meds", "NLP isn’t scientific", etc etc. : I get very tired of addressing those same points over and over again – : and I’m sure those who aren’t involved in the debate are tired of : reading it. Here’s the crux of it. With all those above arguments/complaints, never once have I observed them to be in direct contradiction to a claim that you have made about NLP. For example, "NLP won’t work for X." Fine, all well and good. I think I have noticed on some occasions your response being something along the lines of, "Perhaps not, but there are some people that have had positive results regarding X with the use of NLP." Admittedly, this must be taken at hearsay value from you, but that still does not necessarily mean that you are saying, "No, you’re wrong, NLP works on every occasion for every instantiation of X." Same thing with, "NLP isn’t the cure for everything." You seem to say in response to that, "I’m not claiming it is, but it has helped people in the past with some things, and it may be able to help you with some things, so it might be worth your while to try it out." And again, this does not, to me, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, seem to imply that you are trying to say that it IS a cure for everything, which is perfectly reasonable, IMO. It’s like finding a piece of alien technology that does not necessarily act according to what we know about reality, yet it still cures acne with no side effects. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey, don’t use that, it doesn’t follow what we know to be scientific laws!" Then those who have cured their acne with said device respond, "So what, it works, don’t it?" –Nathan (Just as a really goofy example.) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Kinslayer Dragon | "All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one -==(UDIC)==- | memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow satan | and the Breaking of the World. And him they named @csd.uwm.edu | Dragon." —-Eye of the World ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Response:
Categories: Inhalers For Asthma | 
No Comments »
I also e-mailed an article to her about cognitive problems in MS (thinking she’d have more patience with me during my ‘foggy’ moments)… but she hasn’t even read it, and it’s been a month since i sent it to her! <sigh (She’s 31 btw. I sure wish she’d be more understanding…) Ellie 