Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by crowley7

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: crowley7 on Feb 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
e discussion so far, despite having frequently wandered away from the subject, has been “lively” and sometimes interesting. It would, however, be useful to return to the original subject.1. Witkowski begins his introduction to this “discussion”: ‘The facts collected by mein this article ...’. But this is immediately misleading.(a) That is to say, the discussion of the rating of various journals is presumably accurate. Unfortunately the journal rating issue is also useless since it caneasily be demonstrated that articles in the top rated journals are just as likely to contain fundamental errors as those with lower ratings.(b) It is also true that various CLAIMS are referred to in the article, which have appeared in the various journals. But the claims themselves are NOT factual.Rather they are almost always based on poor research and fundamentally flawed information. Like Sharpley’s (1984) claim that the concept of “preferred representational systems” is ‘one of the basic tenets of NLP’.2. He continues: ‘... certainly outraged many a follower of NLP ...’. But what has this got to do with a supposedly serious aerticle in what I gather is Poland’s leading psychological journal? Was it Witkowski’s intention to cause outrage amongst “follower[s] of NLP”? If not, even if it is true, it is surely irrelevant?3. Next it seems we get more of the same: ‘... which is why today I challenge themall to a duel”(a) ‘I challenge them all’?(b) ‘to a “DUEL”’?What is the basis for such aggressive language?And is this a genuine “challenge”?4. It seems not, for now we come to the heart of the matter: ‘... write honest criticism of my article and release what it in the pages of PPB or in a scientificjournal of similar standing.’With this condition, in my opinion, Witkowski demonstrates that he most certainly is NOT interested in an honest and open discussion. On the contrary, it looks(to me) as though he is counting on not finding anyone who will take him up on his challenge so he can later say: “There you are – I invited someone to respond to my article, and no one could.”It should also be noted that there is a convention in journals of this kind thatany discussion will have just three parts – the initial article, the reply, and aconcluding article by the original author.Not really much of a “duel”, you might think. And even less of a debate. In fact itlooks quite a lot like what is known over here as “stacking the deck”, a card player’sexpression meaning “creating an unfair advantage”.But maybe people aren’t as easily fooled as Witkowski seems to believe.I read Witkowski’s online copy of his article in December 2010 and wrote a detailed response based on extensive research I have been doing over the last two yearsinto exactly the kind of material he covers in his article.On January 7, 2011 I e-mailed Witkowski to tell him that I had written the article and had placed it online but at a “hidden” URL. I invited him to read the articleand send me any criticisms/corrections so that the article could – if necessary – be amended before it “went public” on my website.I have extended the same invitation to more than twenty academics whose work I h
 
ave already reviewed – see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.html - including two of the best known critics, Sharpley and Heap. And apart from the twowho had died since their work was published, Witkowski is one of only three people who have not replied (both Sharpley and Heap did reply, see below).So why is Witkowski not prepared to engage in an honest and open debate?There is no need for it to involve a chat group or forum. He has posted his article on his website. I have posted a response on my website – see: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/witkowski.html.All that Witkowski needs to do is to post a reply on his own website and we could carry on from there. Apparently he has reasons for not doing this, though he has yet to explain what they might be.If he is concerned about my credentials, I have a degree in social psychology from the University of Sussex and a Master Practitioner Certificate from the Society of NLP. I have been studying NLP and the FoNLP for just over 20 years and have used this knowledge, along with my knowledge of psychology for many years, both as a tutor and deputy headmaster of a sixth form college, and in a business context as a trainer/training course designer/training manager and technical author (in IT) in a large telecomms company. As well as several books and magazine articles on computing-oriented subjects I have also written a book on the use of elements of the FoNLP in business, based on my own exoerience. This book was first published in early 1997 and since then has been translated into about 15 languages and went into a fourth edition last year.It may also be worth noting – since Witkowski seems to respect the work of Dr Michael Heap – that when I wrote to Dr Heap about my review of his articles (1988, 1989) he not only replied but ended up, after an interesting discussion that lastedfor several weeks, publishing my article alongside his latest update which appeared in Heap’s own magazine “The Skeptical Intelligencer”, Vol. 11, December 2008. Pages 14-27. (See also Dr Heap’s comment here: http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html, final paragraph.)Of course it has been remarked, in a previous entry on this thread, that Dr. Dolinski, the editor of the PPB, has published some rather critical comments on “NLP” in the past.Given Dr Heap’s willingness to present a balanced view of the subject – he certainlystill remains skeptical, as far as I know, I am hoping that Dr Golinski will prove to be of a similar frame of mind. Because despite the limitation described earlier I will be, in the near future, submitting a modified version of my onlinearticle for inclusion in the PPB.In the meantime Mr Witkowski is welcome to join me in a civilised, open and honest online debate, if he ever changes his mind.hallenge? What challenge?Your pseudo-outraged comments say more than perhaps you would want them to, Mr.Witkowski.I asked you for your correct title and current status (at the time of writing your article) because I use this information in all of my critiques. (This was a feature I introduced after I had started creating my critiques, and some of the earliest articles don
 
t YET have this feature.)Far from this being some kind of insult, as you imply, I was pointing out that your description of yourself on your website does not provide this information. Simply saying that you once worked at this institution or that doesn
 
t tell me whether you were a janitor, a junior faculty member or a senior professor.The fact that you chose to read this as an insult was an "interesting" response
 
- but completely opposite to that I received from numerous other professors whohave published research in this area - including Professor Sharpley, who was prepared to answer this and several other questions, Dr Heap - who featured in yourarticle - who not only answered several questions but even, after a very friendly discussion, published a response to his three reviews (1988, 1989, 2008) in his own magazine. See:http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/respose.htmlhttp://www.mheap.com/nlp.html (last full paragraph)You claim you have substantiated Heap
 
s 1988 opinion - yet in a recent UK radioprogramme that he and I both appeared in he REFUSED to rubbish the FoNLP in theway you have done. He still isn
 
t a supporter of the FoNLP, but at least he is open enough to be prepared to take place in a discussion that includes BOTH SIDESOF THE QUESTION.If you are genuinely looking for an open and honest discussion I wonder why youaren
 
t equally open.There is no need for you to take place in any kind of chat group. You can post whatever you see fit on your website - whenever you want - and I can do the sameon mind.Instead you demand that the whole thing nbe limited to the pages of some professional journal. So your so-called challenge is NOT really open to all NLPers, only those who can put together a full journal article and get it published. And you do this despite the fact that you already know that most NLPers, including John Grinder, an ex-university assistant professor who wrote an entire text on Transformational Grammar, for example), really couldn
 
t give a damn about academic opinions or academic journals and therefore won
 
t take the least bit of notice ofthis pseudo-challenge..Your second comment, that I have cast doubt on Dr Dolinski
 
s impartiality is equally bogus.If you read my posts, here and on Goldenline, you will see that I actually expressed the hope that NO MATTER WHAT Dr Dolinski
 
s personal opinion might be, he would chose the same course as Dr Heap and be willing to present both sides of thestory.The fact is, as you well know, that academic journals have a protocol that effectively favours YOU as the original author.That is to say, you write your article, someone else is allowed to write an article in response - and then YOU get the final word, whilst the other author has no further right to reply.Which gets you out of any possibility of having to defend your highly flawed article in any great detail.This can be seen, for example, in the case of Prodfessor Christopher Sharpley where he wrote his 1984 "review", Drs Einspruch and Forman wrote a response (1985), and Sharpley got the last word (1987).This was despite the fact that to anyone with a genuine knowledge of NLP and theFoNLP could see that Sharpley
 
s second article was even more inaccurate than his first.And THAT, I suspect, is why you have imposed your limitation.Nevertheless, I am preparing a response which I trust Dr Dolinski will favour, just as Dr Heap favoured my previous article. I do not expect either of you to give the slight support to NLP or any of the NLP-related concepts and techniques.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->