Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first encountered them?

You've skipped pretty much most of my argument, but I'll humour you nonetheless. There's no such thing as science being out of the loop. Read my other comment, if you're pushing this unverified "technology" as a cure for depression, you're doing something dangerous and immoral. Just because you found value in this, does not mean it's an alternative to evidence-based, and tested methods. I also solved my depression by very alternative methods, but I also strongly advise people against the methods I used, since they're very much so a "your mileage will very" methods.

>If they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish

Consider if the scientific community; a group who has studied everything from astral projection, to the reaction that created the atom bomb; has been unable to replicate the anecdotal results, that it's possible the anecdotal results are caused by confounding factors.

The power of "I want to believe" is very strong.

> That can't be true.

But it is. From a 2010 meta-analysis:

The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept. The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.

18% is statistically insignificant.

Frankly, I'm glad you were able to overcome your depression. Really, the fact that you did this speaks more to your strength as a person than the strength of NLP. Overcoming depression isn't easy -- it's something I have also struggled with. Rather than credit this, I think you should be crediting yourself.

>I don't see how you've rebutted the study at all

You're correct, I haven't rebutted the study. Again, I explained that it doesn't make the point he wants it to make. See first 2 paragraphs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214917

>using voice changers on interview calls (come on)

What I describe has already been done for gender: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic...

And if researchers can change the name on an applicant's resume to do a study, why can't HR departments do the same thing?

"Come on" is not a good faith counterargument.

>But both of those interventions just mitigate the racism, they don't directly reduce it.

I'm not sure that is true. Imagine someone had the experience of interviewing a Black developer using a voice changer, giving them a thumbs up, meeting them in person for the first time, and learning that they were Black -- counter to the stereotype they held. You don't think that experience could be a powerful demonstration of a person's racial bias which could cause them to rethink some stuff?

Past that, I don't see why the distinction between mitigating and reducing is so important. Racism is bad because it causes bad effects. (CF argument earlier in the thread: "If another race with a far larger population was 50% more likely to get job callbacks than you were, I guarantee you'd agree.") If the easiest way to reduce the bad effects doesn't involve reducing racism, we should do it anyway. The point is to help people, not ideologically purify people.

>Mewanwhile, you've just cited a totally unrelated (and widely dunked-upon) NYT op-ed as evidence for your position

I cited it as evidence for the position that some extremists want to abolish the police. It's right there in the title of the op-ed. I don't see what dunking has to do with it.

Here's a woman with almost half a million Twitter followers saying the same thing in 2022: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1547223384643231744 She tweets something like this every few months. Here's one of her tweets where she explains what she means in more detail: https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1267138648174137345

> This is a case of correlation, plus (again) totally unsubstantiated anecdotal claims.

I went to a one of the greatest hypnotherapists in the world for help with depression, he put me in a trance and did something, and when I came out of the trance my depression was gone.

Dismissing that as mere "correlation" seems illogical to me.

In re: "unsubstantiated anecdotal claim" well, you got me there. I'm just some rando on the internet, eh? Nevertheless, it's true. (I've detailed the experience before on HN, use algolia if you're curious, eh?)

> Suggesting people use unproven, non-evidence based approaches,

Ah, but I am the living proof. My life is the evidence. This is primary data.

> [Suggesting NLP] is reckless and potentially harmful.

I don't see that at all. In fact, to me this situations seems exactly the opposite. This NLP is a profound breakthrough in human psychology. I feel you're being "potentially harmful" to call it pseudoscience and warn people away from it.

I don't doubt that your motives are good and that you're sincere, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history on this one. NLP will eventually have a scientific grounding, perhaps after today's scientific community ages out, but it's inevitable.

(As an aside, when you say it's "reckless" to talk about how NLP cured my depression, what exactly are you getting at? It's not like NLP is a drug with dangerous side effects, eh? It's just talking, after all.)

> You believe NLP "technology" worked for you -- cool.

No dude, not cool. I want to know what happened to me. I want us to "do science" to NLP! I want to know how and why it works.

This "science has debunked NLP" line of nonsense is not helpful.

> There's plenty of evidence-based methodologies that work for statistically significant portions of the population; and those are administered by doctors, and professionals.

For depression? Really? That's terrific! Still doesn't change the fact that NLP works. Again, like I said, if scientists can't figure out how and why the models and techniques of NLP work that just makes them look incompetent.

> But where you cross the line is when you start telling other people to do this too, and that it will work.

Well, at risk of sounding snarky, I must say it's a good thing you aren't the one who gets to decide whether I can recommend NLP to people or not!

> I firmly believe that you trying to make this sound like a sure thing is immoral and dangerous.

I apologize for that. NLP is not a panacea. There is a wide variance in NLP therapists, and results. It's not a "sure thing".

(That said, for e.g. phobias there is a concrete repeatable algorithm that alleviates them, and my understandingh is that it's pretty much 100% effecitive.)

- - - -

I tell you what, it really is puzzling to me why academics have a hard time with NLP. You sound like you have read some of these scientific papers that supposedly "debunk" NLP. If you'll cite some I'll look them over and see if I can detect how or why they failed. I mean, I'm not an expert in NLP nor psychology, but perhaps we can salvage something constructive out of this exchange?

- - - -

edit: I saw when I posted this comment that you have replied to the other sub-thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34226389 ) meanwhile.

I've got to do some other things for a bit but I'll reply in a few hours.

In any event, well met! :)

thanks for explaining that, I think there are some assumptions that are flawed in this decision tree.

1) the admissions into the Ivy would be biased, the education should be the same as before, as admissions into Ivy were always biased in some way. So whatever their alumni (and dropouts) were known for in that brand would still be the same.

2) aggregate better decisions due to different lived experiences doesn't mean just selling consumer products to underprivileged people. you're really going to have to work on what people mean by that, "sales to poor people" isn't the whole universe of different lived experiences, there can be other market inefficiencies with a good TAM. very similar to non-revenue based reach.

And in I Have a Dream, he said this:

>There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

>We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only.

>We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

Since then, most of these problems have been greatly reduced.

Consider police brutality, for instance. On the scale of the entire population, it is small. The Washington Post says they know of 7 unarmed Black people killed by police in 2022. Of those, the majority were fleeing the scene of the crime. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...

There are about 45 million Black people in the US, so those 7 victims represent around 0.00001% of the Black population.

And we can hardly say that "basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one" after a 2-term Black president, who many Black people (including in New York) voted for.

Since injustice has shrunk since King's day, it follows that our concern for that injustice should be smaller as well. Same way it wouldn't be reasonable to murder a clerk who didn't give you the proper amount of change after a purchase.