OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #41
Well, sorry, but....and I'm speaking as an educator....
First off, I have seen nothing whatsover to indicate that NLP is anything other than quackery, based on flimsy evidence and large, very large jumps from what science there is to some very weird conclusions. We simply don't have anything like enough knowledge of the brain, its function, and learning to draw any of these conclusions.
Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class.
Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?
In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.
Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.
All of this stuff is based on pseudo-science.
First off, I have seen nothing whatsover to indicate that NLP is anything other than quackery, based on flimsy evidence and large, very large jumps from what science there is to some very weird conclusions. We simply don't have anything like enough knowledge of the brain, its function, and learning to draw any of these conclusions.
Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class.
Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?
In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.
Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.
All of this stuff is based on pseudo-science.