FT2 and the Headley Down affair Options

[Peter Damian]

Sinister? Lol. FT2 is one of the most reasonable admins I've come across.

LOL to you. I can give you hundreds of diffs of outright bullying, lying, distortion, blocking, the works. He is incredibly pleasant, to be sure, for most of the time. So was Essjay, of course.

For example, here is one of his most spectularly blatant edits. This is a quote from Sharpley, a scientist who whose research has exposed the fraudulent practices of the ‘Neurolinguistic programming’ cult.

On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability.

FT2 omits the bold bit at the end, to suggest that Sharpley supports its apparent endorsement by "clinicians in the field".

When another editor (not me) pointed this out and attempted to set the record straight, FT2 quickly got him blocked. This has happened to every editor who has attempted reasonably to oppose FT’s slanted and idiosyncratic view on fringe subjects such as NLP, zoophilia, chiropractice &c.

Note FT2 has written nearly all the articles in the NLP stable. Go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

and look at the box on the right. All his own work. Compare the enormous range of material on this pseudoscientific crap with what you find in a standard encylopedia (which is zero), or compare the length of the articles on Richard Bandler or John Grindler (NLP charlatans) with the length of those on Aristotle or Wittgenstein or Dickens, and see for yourself.

Attempt to delete or change any of this stuff and you will join the large crowd of people evicted from the encylopedia for even daring such a thing. He will be incredibly nice and polite for 90% of the process, but as soon as he sees where you are really coming from, bang, you are out.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 20th January 2008, 3:42pm

[Peter Damian]

WP is full of well sourced facts, that are systematically and highly reasonably organized in order to be presented to make them as misleading as possible to the reader. This is especially the case where vested interests are an issue.

Not that well-sourced even. FT2 put this in the philosophy of perception article once:

The term [[neuro-linguistic programming]], often abbreviated to NLP, was coined by [[Richard Bandler]] and [[John Grinder]] for their method of studying the structure of subjective experience.

Which is nonsense because the work of these snake-oil sellers has nothing to do with the philosophy of perception. Fortunately someone (again, not me) spotted this and removed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=39058614

I could find no reference to NLP in any philosophy/epistemology books in the whole of London University library, and it was certainly not mentioned by my lecturers during my degree.)

How much more of this crap is out there?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 20th January 2008, 4:04pm

[guy]

I could find no reference to NLP in any philosophy/epistemology books in the whole of London University library, and it was certainly not mentioned by my lecturers during my degree.)

But this is someone living in England in a similar way to Poetlister, etc. - even at the same university. He should be blocked at once!

[Moulton]

In the early years of electricity, magnetism, and radio, a number of entrepreneurs sought to market electromagnetic induction technologies as therapeutic devices. Notwithstanding such snake oil, electromagetism does have its legitimate uses, including some in medicine.

NLP may well have a similar history.

[Docknell]

In the early years of electricity, magnetism, and radio, a number of entrepreneurs sought to market electromagnetic induction technologies as therapeutic devices. Notwithstanding such snake oil, electromagetism does have its legitimate uses, including some in medicine.

NLP may well have a similar history.

Look at the sociological books that include NLP as a subject. NLP is a new age development, and considered in the same bracket as scientology. The subject is built the same and is just as pseudoscientific. So it does have its uses. Its good for gaining money for misleading desperate individuals. Just about every mind myth spills out all over NLP, from eye movement mythology, to left right brain dichotomania. Its an archetypical pseudoscience. In truth its about misinformation. But it is useful if you want to use it as a sort of cult or new age religion.

[Moulton]

Let me touch on this subject a bit more.

I would rather look at books on cognitive science than sociology.

But more than merely using the faculty of vision, I'd prefer to use the faculty of insight.

Ironically, although the faculty of audition is not my most favored channel, I first learned about NLP some 30 years ago when I heard another researcher describe it in terms of which sensory modalities a person was most attuned to.

Having said that, it's undeniable that some of the questionable uses to which NLP has been put smell a little fishy to me.

[Docknell]

Let me touch on this subject a bit more.

I would rather look at books on cognitive science than sociology.

But more than merely using the faculty of vision, I'd prefer to use the faculty of insight.

Ironically, although the faculty of audition is not my most favored channel, I first learned about NLP some 30 years ago when I heard another researcher describe it in terms of which sensory modalities a person was most attuned to.

Having said that, it's undeniable that some of the questionable uses to which NLP has been put smell a little fishy to me.

The latest research into cog science says the more sensory "channels" you integrate well, the better. The recent research on VAK (aka superpowerlearning theory pseudoscience) says that telling people that they have any particular preference in one of those so called channels, will likely restrict their learning/thinking ability. Its not just the uses NLP is put to; eg, magick, energy (qi) therapies, personality testing with the enneagram, speed seduction, management training etc. The fact is, as NLP is so disimilar to cognitive science in conceptualization, and has failed the test so many times, the only people who can really make sense of it are those sociologists who study groups who practice wicca, voodoo, shamanism, and so on. Mentioning NLP as if it is something to do with cognitive science would be highly embarrassing. The two areas are more appropriate for contrasting science and pseudoscience. The subject of NLP is given as an example of pseudoscience within undergraduate courses on distinguishing science from quackery. That fact is not likely to get a mention on WP. There are too many admin who care about it enough to protect it or protect the COI parties, and there are not enough scientists on WP as they tend to be driven off by ludicrous rules that seem to make it easy to remove facts, and impossible to maintain them. WP is a perfect device for misinforming the public.

[Moulton]

Concerning mental telepathy, one time I tried to read another person's mind, but I kept drawing a blank.

[tarantino]

You know what's really weird? The word brevify. It's a word frequently used by FT2 in his edit summaries. It appears 20 times on WP, and all but 2 of the results are authored by either FT2 or HeadleyDown and his suspected socks. Google returns 171 results out of billions of web pages, and many of them are misspellings of brevity.

Maybe it's some NLP neologism, but I doubt it. Do you know Action potential?

I'll have to look closer at this later.

[guy]

It's not a valid Scrabble word.

[Peter Damian]

You know what's really weird? The word brevify. It's a word frequently used by FT2 in his edit summaries. It appears 20 times on WP, and all but 2 of the results are authored by either FT2 or HeadleyDown and his suspected socks. Google returns 171 results out of billions of web pages, and many of them are misspellings of brevity.

Maybe it's some NLP neologism, but I doubt it. Do you know Action potential?

I'll have to look closer at this later.

Now that is really really weird.

I suppose Action Potential (WR) could possibly be the same as Action Potential (WP). Particularly since the former spends most of his or her time browsing the NLP related articles here.

[Moulton]

More common synonyms would be condense, shorten, or abridge.

[Docknell]

You know what's really weird? The word brevify. It's a word frequently used by FT2 in his edit summaries. It appears 20 times on WP, and all but 2 of the results are authored by either FT2 or HeadleyDown and his suspected socks. Google returns 171 results out of billions of web pages, and many of them are misspellings of brevity.

Maybe it's some NLP neologism, but I doubt it. Do you know Action potential?

I'll have to look closer at this later.

It looks to me like the discussions on the NLP article tended to turn into pure comedy due to the cultish nature of NLP language. I think the skeptics there tend to take the piss quite a lot and often by pretending "NLP mimickry". They also seemed to do it without being uncivil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...1#Swish_example

Action Potential, and others such as Fainties seem also to have been running around various newsgroups promoting NLP or snooping in general. It looks fairly easy to find some of those related names just by googling.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwbc/message/20830

Though I imagine it would he harder to find those NLP proponent names on any pedophilia related groups. FT2 seems to have been more careful not to disclose a realname.

Anyway, I imagine thats how Action potential / Comaze / Scott Coleman would find info here.

It'll no doubt all get denied one way or another though. In the end, the diffs show the story pretty well.

[Proabivouac]

After the block of Phdarts as a sock of HeadleyDown…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User:Phdarts
…I took a look at the HeadleyDown situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown
FT2's tips on how to spot a HeadleyDown sockpuppet are not enpouraging:

HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article…
It is worth noting that Wikipedians lacking prior experience usually mistake HeadleyDown's socks as being good-faith editors, perhaps who don't quite understand 'personal attack', and treat his disputes as run-of-the-mill content/civility/3RR/NPOV issues…
An editor (or clique of editors) who says they are being helpful or neutral and following Wiki-process (adding valid cites and genuine info and removing unsupported statements etc),

For example, consider these editors who, FT2 claimed, were sockpuppets "used to attack Zoophilia":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...ttack_Zoophilia

Two of these three editors were blocked by FT2 himself, in direct violation of the Blocking policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:FFodor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...age=User:CSIvor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes

The "evidence" to which FT2 appeals in their block logs is a link to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

FT2 claims that CSIvor was "also attacking Canada, Paraphilia, Criminal law and Crime scene photography. Here are what FT2 described as attacks on Canada and Crime scene photography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=64632818
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=64636452