Dear Georgios,
Thanks for you flattering note. I'm afraid you may not find my
perspective comforting. In short, I don't see any scientific merit to
NLP. As with most pseudo-science it waves its hands at established
phenomena and theory, but in its details it is theoretically incoherent
and wholly lacking in empirical support. Given this, I don't see much
point in studying it. If you are interested in issues like embodiment,
alignment in dialogue, social attention, and so forth, there are far
richer intellectual veins to mine.
I don't have any interest in entering into a protracted debate on this
topic. You are of course welcome to consider or ignore my opinion as you
prefer.
Best wishes,
John Henderson
Georgios Diamantopoulos wrote:
> Dear Prof Henderson:
>
> I am really delighted to be participating in an active conversation with a
> scholar of your stature; I have read several of your publications and follow
> your ongoing work as something to look up.
>
> I must say I am most surprised by your comments and would invite you to
> elaborate on what exactly you would consider as scholarly activity. I am
> sincerely interested in how activities of several academic researchers
> including myself, in relation to NLP, fit to that. As noted implicitly in my
> previous post, it is our acknowledgement of lack of past academic research
> from the creators of NLP that drives us and our work.
>
>
> Dear Charles:
>
> Thanks for the elaborate post. A couple of points:
> - First of all, anyone interested in NLP would be interested to look at
> http://www.nlpresearch.org - the links and materials there are very
> informative with regards to the current state of academic research in NLP.
>
> - Even though SoM references surface and deep structure from Chomsky, there
> is little correlation between the two uses. i.e. what Chomsky means by
> surface/deep structure is quite different to what Bandler/Grinder meant.
>
> - As a word of caution, Heap's review only reports the results of the
> relevant research and makes no critique on their methodology, which is
> something I addressed with my presentation at the 1st International NLP
> Research Conference at the University of Surrey. He also includes
> unpublished work and non-peer-reviewed publications.
>
> - The EAC model is idiosyncratic and that is all that has ever been claimed
> from the original authors. They provided a diagram in Frogs Into Princes
> about the model that they believe fits most (?%) right-handed people but
> it's done more bad than good in my opinion because everybody believes the
> diagram = the model.
>
> - Parts of NLP are or are quickly becoming outdated, which is what the NLP
> Research Conference is about. There are people out there, like myself, that
> are trying to a) link NLP to academic research b) further NLP. See link
> above.
>
> - Most, if not all, claims that NLP's EAC model is a lie-detector tool
> amongst other things come from unreliable sources. None of the popular NLP
> authors have ever claimed that to my knowledge. These unreliable sources,
> without going too much into detail, they assume that Visual Construction =
> Lie, which is FALSE! It is possible to detect lying with NLP but it's much
> more complicated than eye-movements alone - there was a link with an
> elaborate explanation but I can't find it right now. It basically involves
> careful calibration (body language, including EMs) of Yes and No answers.
> It's unfortunate there are several websites that have since copied this
> false claim.
>
> Apologies to all - I promised to include my abstract in my last post but I
> missed doing so:
>
>
> A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH INTO THE NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING
> EYE-ACCESSING CUES MODEL
>
> The Neuro-Lingustic Programming (NLP) Eye-Accessing Cues (EAC) model
> suggests that there is a correlation between eye-movements and the internal
> processing mode that people employ whilst accessing their subjective
> experience (Bandler and Grinder, 1975).
>
> Since its introduction in 1975, the EAC model has been investigated by
> several researchers with at least 6 out of 10 studies clearly reporting
> unsupportive results.
>
> It is customary to revisit these studies because as we will show, upon
> careful examination, the respective experimental methodologies were based on
> assumptions informed by an incomplete or erroneous understanding of the EAC
> model that could have significantly influenced the experimental results. The
> reliability of results can be further impacted by the absence of modern
> eye-tracking equipment to support the inherently complex task of reliably
> recording, selecting and rating eye-positions.
>
> Given that eye-movement research from other fields does not directly prove
> or disprove the EAC model, we will argue that there is substantial ground
> for further research.
>
> Thus, we will revisit the past research and critically review it in detail,
> while highlighting the strengths and weaknesses that should inform future
> research in the EAC model. Additionally, we will present recent non-NLP
> eye-movement research, including Eye-Movement Desensi-tisation and
> Reprocessing (EMDR), and discuss its relevancy to and implications for the
> EAC model. We will also discuss recent neuroscience findings related to
> sensory representations.
> Future research on the EAC model has substantial challenges to face: a) the
> difficulty in vali-dating the subject's internal experience b) the
> challenges in recording the appropriate eye-movement (several internal
> processes may be triggered by the elicitation) and thus, c) the in-tricacy
> of defining a standardized methodology that can be successfully replicated
> for every subject, without deviance. Moreover, the EAC model itself is not
> fully documented in any one reference.
>
> Both the challenges and requirements for further experimental research will
> be discussed.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Georgios Diamantopoulos
> Doctoral Researcher
> University of Birmingham, UK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Willock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 August 2008 21:03
> Subject: (long) Re: [EM_LIST] Benefit of eyetracking to speech, muscle
> activity and brain waves.
>
> I agree that some controversy has surrounded both EMDR and NLP
> however, as with Georgios post it would be disappointing if the
> scientifically interesting aspects of both were ignored just because
> of popular over-extension (in the case opf NLP) or (perhaps more
> in the case of EMDR) because the proposed theoretical underpinnings
> don't seem to withstand close scrutiny.
>
> NLP is popularly presented in a couple of ways. As a marketing /
> selling tool "how to get people to buy (more) stuff". Another common
> representation is as a crime-investigating, eye-movement-watching,
> deception-detecting tool. While there is some element of truth in
> those perspectives neither really do it justice.
>
> A better way of understanding NLP can be gained from considering its
> origins. My apologies in advance for the deviation into linguistics -
> the justification for doing so (and its relevance to EM and HCI) will
> become apparent.
>
> Put simply: (i) take an expert in a field (in the case of NLP,
> therapy), (ii) analyse and model in detail what they say and how they
> interact and (iii) identify the canonical characteristics of their
> technique(s). For NLP those essential characteristics are linguistic
> and subsequently EM.
>
> How successful/useful the results are then becomes, inter alia,
> a matter of:
>
> o. how well the interaction model matches reality (Ashby/requisite
> variety if cybernetics is your thing).
>
> o. how representative/relevant the expert (or, in the case of
> NLP, the experts) as model(s) of the intended application.
>
> o. how skilful are the expert(s)
>
> o. the nature and quality of the analysis.
>
> o. usability/ease of application
>
>
> The first and second-last aspects in particular deserve further
> examination.
>
> NLP is based on linguistic analysis using Chomsky's Transformational (*)
> Grammar (TG) and that, as list members may know, has been
> shifting/improving with time (by Chomsky and others) to Government and
> Binding theory and more recently competing with other models often
> incorporating different levels of pragmatics and semantics.
>
> (*) FWIW, here "transformational" refers to linguistic transformations
> not psychological ones.
>
> If the purpose is to provide an accurate synthesis/generative tool for
> applications such as text translation (which might more properly be
> termed CHI rather than HCI) then some kind of heavy duty generalised
> phrase structure grammar might be desirable. On the other hand, if
> behavioural modelling of human interaction in casual speech
> translation is required then some kind og functional systemic
> linguistics (eg Halliday's) or some similar functional approach
> incorporating aspects of pragmatics, semantics and semiotics might
> well be preferred.
>
> Although relatively simple, Transformational Grammar as explained by
> John Grinder (the linguist of NLP) in 'Structure of Magic-I' provides
> a useful introduction into linguistic transformations in English (in
> essence, how parts of sentences can be swapped around yet still convey
> pretty much the same meaning). SoM-I also provides a valuable
> explanation of the concepts of surface, deep structures (and its later
> extension to S-Structure/D-Structure) and presuppositions
>
> Understanding "structures" and presuppositions can be important in
> semantics of computer-human interaction.
>
> A second characteristic of NLP is the modelling of cognitive
> processing along sensory (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) lines. Some
> users also add a joint taste-and-smell channel and a self-talk
> (audio-internal) channel. The suggestion is that one can categorise
> people by listening to their preferred language usage (so if they use
> language such as "do you see what I mean?" then that would distinguish
> them as "V" (visual) rather than (A) auditory "do you hear what I'm
> saying", and (K) "does that feel right for you".
>
> There is some kind of reasonableness in relating sensory preference to
> the words people use - if you are a painter you use visual/seeing type
> words, if you are into sound you use hearing type words. The concept
> seems to work well enough for example with learning styles (Howard Gardner
> amongst others).
>
>
> So what's with NLP and eye-movement?
>
> In the standard interpretation, a person remembering things in a
> visual mode (ie visualising an actual event) would look up and to
> their left, while if they looked up (V mode) and to their right (Vc)
> they would be visualising a "c"onstructed memory (ie visually
> accessing or at least filling in, imagined content). More detail
> can be found at one of the many websites such as:
>
> http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/eye_accessing.htm
>
> What seems to be uncertain is
>
> o. why (even if those EM patterns do show for the primary
> sensory modes) would a set of "constructed" ones show
> differentiated patterns.
>
> o. why all subjects would show the same EM patterns.
>
> Also, purely from channel bandwidth and competition for eye access
> considerations it seems unlikely that a set of just six eye-movement
> patterns could account for (or reveal) all cognitive processing.
>
> Incidently, the NLP Representational system Wiki indicates that NLP
> people don't always require the standard pattern (see eye access
> diag ... although I'm not sure why they make that claim)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_systems_(NLP)
>
> Also worth looking at a provisional analysis (circa 1985)
>
> http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf
>
> at what parts work (or not as the case may be).
>
>
> What is potentially scientifically interesting is
>
> o. using computer recognition and suitable classifiers
> some kind of "individual sensory processing modes" might
> be recognisable (regardless of whether they correspond
> to the current models or not)
>
> o. it may be possible to denurgle the "sensory processing mode"
> patterns from the other eye accessing behaviour
>
>
> That's nowhere as simple as a one model fits all solution, but it
> might be more realistic.
>
> On the other hand, such experimentation would be dealing with higher
> level behaviour and involves more intangibles such as the meaning of
> processing, mood and emotion or other suprasegmental parameters. The
> equipment might be simpler (eg may only need to detect gross eye movements
> but the interpretation might be more complex.
>
>
> EMDR is interesting in a different way, and it is worth looking at
> Francine Shapiro's original book (Eye Movement De-sensitisation and
> Reprogramming) to understand its origins. As of 2004, US government
> guidelines approve it as a preferred treatment for some kind of
> management of post-traumatic stress.
>
> http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5187 (search for
> EMDR)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing
> http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html
>
> Shapiro's appears to have highlighted an important observation.
> However, since that involves inconsistent patterns of eye-movement
> (non-cohesive in the Halliday-Hasan linguistic sense or even disjunctive)
> this suggests that EM experiments might well give "inconsistent" or
> quite ideosynchratic results. Explaining those results and especially
> explaining how they are resolved for individuals with traumatic memories
> could be particularly valuable.
>
> (Shapiro suggests re-integration via something akin to REM sleep as an
> analog but the validity of that may be questionable especially as
> it appears that the same results can be achieved by similar pattern
> "re-integration" without involving the eyes).
>
>
> Certainly read the popular expositions of NLP and EMDR on the web if
> you are that way inclined, including the Bandler and Grinder wikis and
> the skeptical assessment at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bandler
> http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html
>
> but maybe worth keeping one's mind open at least until reading Grinder
> and Bandler's original work (Structure of Magic: A Book about Language
> and Therapy ... and Structure of Magic II) ... while being aware of what
> they were trying to achieve ... along with the constraints of the times.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Charlesw
>
>
> Bandler and Grinder [1975], "The Structure of Magic". 225 pp
> Grinder and Bandler [1976], "The Structure of Magic II". 198 pp
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:45PM +0100, Georgios Diamantopoulos wrote:
>> Dear Michael and other readers,
>>
>> It is the job of a scientist and academic to cast his or her genuine
>> curiosity on anything and everything.
>> On that note, I'd like to point out that there is quite a lot of research
>> especially on NLP as well as EMDR.
>>
>> Both models emerged without any academic-style research so, yes, they
>> haven't followed "protocol".
>>
>> On the other hand, as academics tackle the same subjects, there is so far
>> quite some overlap.
>>
>> EMDR - has been shown to be effective (as effective or more than other
>> exposure therapies), at least for particular subject groups. There is
>> controversy over the eye-movement component; the current research suggests
>> that they make exposure to traumatic memories tolerable so that therapy
> can
>> continue. The reason is unknown though there are a few theories out there
>> and we also know it's not a distraction effect.
>>
>> NLP - various research items support ideas that are presented in NLP. E.g.
>> rapport (mirror neurons, phi brainwaves etc), embodiment of experience and
>> so on.
>>
>> My research is with regards to the eye-movement model of NLP. One of the
>> unsubstantiated parts of NLP.
>> It is quite clear from past research that eye-movements are correlated to
>> mental processes, in some, unknown so far, way. If the mapping that NLP
>> suggests has any "truth" in it, it is to be found.
>>
>> I can provide references for anyone interested on any of the above. Also,
> I
>> made a presentation at the First International NLP Research Conference at
>> the University of Surrey, UK entitled " A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH
>> INTO THE NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING EYE-ACCESSING CUES MODEL". Abstract
>> attached below and slides with full references are available for
> interested
>> parties.
>>
>> Georgios Diamantopoulos
>> Doctoral Researcher
>> University of Birmingham, UK
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael MacAskill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 27 July 2008 22:19
>> Subject: Re: Benefit of eyetracking to speech, muscle activity and brain
>> waves.
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I was under the impression that this was a list for discussions
>> relevant to the science of eye movement control. I am therefore
>> somewhat saddened when a genuine question is responded to with two
>> pointers to what could (at best) be described as pseudo-science (eye
>> movement desensitisation & reprogramming, and neurolinguistic
>> programming). Will iridology be next?
>>
>> Peter, it would be useful to know more about what the specific goals
>> of the system would be. Many of these measures (to which you could add
>> galvanic skin response and heart rate if you are interested in
>> emotion) are remarkably non-specific and their suitability can only
>> really be assessed in relation to the specific purpose to which they
>> are to be applied.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael MacAskill
>>
>>
>>
>>> In addition to coherence of information you may also wish to consider
>>> understanding disjuction between EM and those other modes. Eg the
>>> work
>>> on EMDR and cognitive re-integration in cases of PTSD.
>>>
>>> http://www.emdr.com/
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> it might b of interest to check the kiterature on neurolinguistic
>>> programming (NLP). THe NLP proponents maintain that they can interpret
>>> some though content from eze gaze.
>>>
>>>> Hello dear eyetracking community,
>>>>
>>>> I am working in the ET area since two years now as a computer
>>>> scientist in the field of HCI. I lately was asked what eyetracking
>>>> could add for additonal information if a system collaborating with
>>>> the human would measure his/her speech, muscle activity, and brain
>>>> waves. Since I have only little knowledge especially concerning
>>>> muscle
>>>> activity and brain waves I had to admit that I am only guessing that
>>>> the three measures mentioned "only" give hints concerning the
>>>> emotional state of the human and that eyetracking of course could
>>>> additionally give the clue where the human is looking, so where is
>>>> his/her attention.
>>>> I think that is the main point. But I am not sure to which extent the
>>>> brain data already could provide this too. - Does anybody know the
>>>> state of the art concerning this, how good this works and how great
>>>> the effort is? Additionally of course eyetracking could contribute
>>>> to the emotional state measurement using blink rate and pupillometric
>>>> data and via the attention also on intention.
>>>>
>>>> That are my thoughts so far. I would be very pleased if someone could
>>>> help me here to continue this interesting discussion, e.g. whether I
>>>> missed some important points.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance,
>>>>
>>>> kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Peter.
>>
>> --
>> Michael R. MacAskill, PhD [log in to unmask]
>> Research Fellow
>> Van der Veer Institute for Parkinson's & Brain Research
>> University of Otago, Christchurch
>> 66 Stewart St
>> Christchurch Ph: +64 3 3786 072
>> NEW ZEALAND Fax: +64 3 3786 080
>>
>> --
>> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
>> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
>> To unsubscribe, etc. see
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
>> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>>
>> --
>> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
>> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
>> To unsubscribe, etc. see
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
>> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>
> "Creativity and innovation are measured not by what is done,
> but by what could have been done ... but wasn't"
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.eng.unsw.edu.au/emaildis.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Willock [log in to unmask]
> c/- School of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of New South Wales,
> New South Wales Australia 2052 http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~charlesw
>
> --
> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
> To unsubscribe, etc. see
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>
>
--
Prof John M. Henderson
Visual Cognition Unit
Psychology Department
7 George Square
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ
United Kingdom
[log in to unmask]
http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/jhender9/henderson_index.html
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
|