What does it do?
The "Joe Greenfield virus" is not really a person, in the usual sense. Nor is it an expert in any form of psychology. Rather it is a self-replicating Internet virus with the ability to cut and paste material from other sites (especially Wikipedia) to create what look like “expert” articles. In relation to NLP, however, the virus seems to have trouble “keeping its cool” and tends to resort to the kind of mixture of nonsense and insult found in its NLP article on this site.
One topic the JGV is particularly attracted to is the question of "scientific validation".
Despite being informed, on various forums, that NLPers evaluate techniques on the basis of whether they "work" (i.e. do they get the required results or don't they) the JGV continues to wander around insisting that if "NLP" wants to be taken seriously it must get itself validated by scientists.
In it's more virulent form it attacks "NLP" (the JGV seems to have little or no idea what NLP is), claiming that it has been positively INvalidated by controlled experiments.
And if that wasn't a big enough waste of time, the JGV has a rather strange method of replication.
How Does it Spread?
Where most viruses mutate, the JGV (in its rants against NLP) simply changes its name, whilst the contents stay relatively stable. Which is why it is relatively easy to spot once you are familiar with certain elements of its "DNA".
(I refer to this virus as "it" because, it uses both male and female identities (though there has been only one females alias that I actually know of). Still, this obviously cannot be taken as *proof* that the person responsible is in fact a man. So, what is referred to here as "Joe Greenfield" has also appeared as on other sites as (in no particular order):
Krish Singh (skeptic discussion group)
Daniel Ralen (Barnes & Noble book reviews and elsewhere)
Dr Elaine Warwick (Barnes & Noble book reviews)
Austin Yu (Amazon reviews)
Andy McFay (NLP-Mind discussion group and the skeptic discussion group)
Ken Bond (NLP-Mind discussion group)
Johan van Eeden (TrainingZone discussion group)
Rich Farnham (NLP Connections)
And possibly many other outbreaks that I know nothing about.
As has happened here, the virus often claims to be an expert in some relevant field(s) of psychology, with a particular interest in business and/or education. However its frequent errors when discussing these subjects in relation to NLP suggest that in reality it knows little or nothing about psychology (in or out of the workplace and/or the classroom).
What Motivates the "Joe Greenfield"?
Whilst it is normally impossible to know what goes on in the mind of a virus, in this case the virus itself has explained its motivation.
Although the virus usually puts up a series of nonsensical pseudo-academic claims about NLP - as can be found on this site - it seems that its basic purpose (as described by the JGV itself in a conversation on the Skeptics site), is to annoy genuine NLPers. At that time it described its greatest triumph to date as being the occasion when it provoked an NLPer into flaming it on a certain discussion group, only for the NLPer to be banned from the group whilst the virus remained in place.
The Mysterious Lord Candlak
Despite the sheer volume of aliases he uses, we have accumulated a list of characteristics which appear in the communications put out at one time or another by "Joe" and his ilk. However we recently came across a blogsite - apparently run by a real life, flesh and blood chappy "somewhere not a million miles from England. So, at last, we are able to ask the crucial question: Is Lord Candlak the mastermind behind "Joe Greenfield" and all the other little sockpuppets?
Lord Candlak has appeared on numerous online sites, including his own blog, almost always to contribute some kind of rant about someone or something which has aroused his Lordship's ire (his Lordship's ire seems remarkably arousable, and his spleen highly ventable!).
In regard to NLP, reviewing the text and the lists of references of both "Joe" and his Lordship the similarities are so plentiful one might suppose that either his Lordship is plaigiarising "Joe's" work, or "Joe" is plaigiarising his Lordship's work. Or are they are both plaigiarising someone else's work?
Is it any wonder the phrase "Get a life" comes to mind whenever the JGV appears.
Andy Bradbury
You cannot be serious!
As to whether the criticisms are of my book:
1. What you refer to as "book reviews" only account for three of the eight names.
2. No, they aren't "reviews" of my book - they show a complete lack of understanding of NLP, and a complete ignorance of what is in my book. Like Daniel Ralen's comment that NLP will teach you how to get a girl in a wig to suck a pink ice lolly.
Call that a book review? You cannot be serious.
3. In fact all of the so-called book reviews are plain and simple rants. Just like your Knol article on NLP - and "your" other rants around the internet.
By the way, thank you for confirming your real identity. I had a hunch, but I really wasn't quite sure 'til now.
;¬)
Joe Greenfield
Invite as author
Some advice
http://knol.google.c
http://knol.google.c
Andy Bradbury, look at the reviews of other NLP author's books and you will see there is criticism there also. If I were you I would learn to try to cope with criticism in some way without resorting to attacks on the web. Negative propaganda will tend to backfire. If you don't agree with the scientific method then find some way to write your views without attacking those who do.
Joe
Joe Greenfield
Invite as author
Feel free to suggest changes
I am neither a virus nor any of the above people you have suggested.
I am in the process of writing authoritative articles anonymously as I believe that is quite possible on Knol. Any other author on Knol, anonymous or otherwise, is free to check my sources and offer suggestions. As is clear from a lot of authors here, I have taken sourced information from Wikipedia and am in the process of verifying/correcting it and adding more from other sources. I have given details about my approach as an author:
http://knol.google.c
Remaining anonymous is wise for the purpose of avoiding any personal harassment from the groups I will be writing about. I am going to be relying on the weight of my sourcing rather than personal attribution. I realize that the literature examining NLP and similar groups contains substantial criticism. If you find any of the sourced material on my NLP article incorrect, please suggest changes there.
Joe
I only wonder why you ever pretended your article was original.
Unless, of course, you are indeed a sock puppet and the author of the nonsense on Wikipedia?
Is it nonsense?
If it isn't, why do you need to verify and correct it?
As to suggesting improvements - delete your article, stop writing nonsense and go do something to improve your quality of life.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window