NLP – No Longer Plausibe
Bertrand Russell's famous dictum"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing I true"
NLP nonsense
Sharpley’s 1984 literature review found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" no support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching, then in a 1987 study states "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data".
Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 31(2), 238-248.
Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.
United States National Research Council
USNRC produced a report, overseen by a board fo 14 academic experts, stating that "individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". The whole edifice of influence and rapport techniques "instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors".
Druckman and Swets (eds) (l988) Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques, National Academy Press.
Neuromythology
Barry Beyerstein (1990) asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. "
Beyerstein.B.L (1990). Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. International Journal of Mental Health 19(3): 27-36,27.
Disillusionment
Efran and Lukens (1990) stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".
Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. p.122
Mutual exchange of myths
In his book, The Death of Psychotherapy, Eisner couldn’t find ‘one iota of clinical research’ to support NLP. This is in direct contradiction to the claims made by NLP practitioners, who laud it as a great leap forward in understanding the mind. To be fair Eisner doesn’t just finger NLP he also demolishes; Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Cathartic Therapies, Recovered Memory Therapies, Humanistic Psychotherapy, Behavioural and Cognitive Therapy, Strategic Family Systems Therapy, NLP, EFT, CBT, BCBT, DHE, EMDR, Gestalt Therapy, Implosion Therapy, Palm Therapy, Person Centred Therapy, Primal Therapy, Reframing, Thought Field Therapy, Direct Exposure Therapy, Spiritual Therapy and many others. The sheer scale of clinically unproven therapies is astounding. The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing As Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression by Thomas Stephen Szasz is similarly damning. His claim is that almost anyone can sit down with anyone else, have a chat, and call it psychotherapy. The practitioners are unaccredited, or self-accredited, and the theories scientifically unsubstantiated. It is the mutual exchange of myths.
(Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income
This is the description of NLP by Lilienfield et al (2002) who conclude that NLP is "a scientifically unsubstantiated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients" and include it in their description "
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
Grandfather of CBT dismissive
Even Albert Ellis, the grandfather of cognitive behavioral therapy, famous for developing REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy) specifically identified NLP as one of those, “techniques that are avoided”. This was the one therapy he abhorred because of its “dubious validity” (Dryden & Ellis, in Dobson, 2001: 331). Then again, Ellis published a book in 1965 entitled Homosexuality: Its Causes and Cure. Psychotherapists have a habit of seeing everything as a pathological condition that can be cured by their methods.
Hanging around in HR
Von Bergen et al (1997) showed that NLP had been abandoned by researchers in experimental psychology and Devilly (2005) makes the point that NLP has disappeared from clinical psychology and academic research only surviving in the world of pseudo new-age fakery and, although no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s… is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains"
Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal, Lamar V Wilkinson (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(4): 281-294.
Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437
posted by Donald Clark at 10:57 PM
25 Comments:
New Laughter Please
Picture yourself on a boat on a river, you're all at ease and mesmerised.
Somebody calls you you answer quite slowly, a man with murderous eyes.
Gullible followers of NLP mean to take over your head.
Look for the science and logic and reason and there's none.
New Language Police
Follow him down to turn frogs into Princess where rocking horse people tell unbelievable lies.
Everyone smiles as you listen to tales which grow so incredibly tall.
New language police appear at the door waiting to take you away.
Ask for the evidence and your head's in the clouds cause there's none.
No Laughing Please
Picture yourself on a train left the station is no laughing please your looking glass tells.
Suddenly sometime you're paying at the turnstyle as your credibility dies.
Donald,
Thank GOD you're out there - well, maybe I won't in case you provide a lot of literature refs about the non-existence of god, or how one can't thank him, etc!
How grateful I am for a man who can say in 800+ words what I could in 2 + an initialisation: NLP is shit! Maybe I could be totally fair and add the citations that allowed you to make the conclusion - so I'll give you those and say you waffled on only by about a mere 600 words – not exactly good ‘prose’ for online reading, haven’t you READ the research about that??? Hmmm, maybe I should state 70% of the words rather than 600 words were waffle to ensure I get some truly objective stats in my post.
Donald, just for you I'll also give you some more points and write in excess - just like you!
Empirical - defn: data produced by experiment or observation. I observe that your conclusions are as good as other's empirical findings as I assume you don't do anything yourself, other than read enormous amounts (a notoriously poor learning mech with about 10% retention after 2 weeks according to Dale (Edgar, not Winton!), but I can't be arsed checking that out on how truly repeatable or accurate that is to be honest.) Do let me know.
Science of learning - er, funny this one. Science really is about that which is reproducible: get a 100 pple with an IQ of 75 to generate similar stats over and over following some learning? Not sure about that... possibly too stupid to repeat results, despite the test/ reference conditions!! Any research on this one Donald? If not, you CANNOT answer unless a pointless guess - I ONLY accept answers that are empirical, plus the necessary citations from a plausible and well reviewed journal, and self repeatable in experimental conditions! Answer wisely.
By the way, who gives a s**t about all those people you continue to waffle on about with disdain re. learning ‘theory’? (Gagne, Vygotsky , etc, etc. Yawn!!!!) Just say what you believe - it's a waste of time stating what you don't like. I don't like rap, I don't like milk. YAWN... zzzzzz. Talk of NEW things you believe, f**k the rest!
And why is it the e-learning 'Gurus' don't actually 'DO' - they just waffle! Makes me laff that they all jump on the annual bandwagons to hype their talk/ book/ etc. by plagiarising/ inventing stuff. “Do some proper bloody work, u waste of spacers”, I think!
Dull, dull, dull. Oh, I see an informal learning book came out recently? Hmmmm, who could have done that?? Hmmm, a 'guru'?? LMFHO!!! Son of God? More like waste of spacer on the money bandwagon.
All this stuff you spout about the ‘science’ thing is actually on target, but get rid of all these old buggers (aka. Guru - LMFAO!) waffling on, and forget shitting on everyone else from the past century – put in some of your cash or get a job in research and do something impressive, like Curtis Bonk! Now there’s a proper researcher with something to say.
I'd have put in a picture of me, but there's no empirical data in any literature that I can find that it will actually be me.
Keep your eyes out... observing, collecting data. I'll be back in future to put you on the couch. You need it!
Knighthood
1.49 - A late night posting.
So references are rubbish, science can't be used to disprove past theories and you need to become Curtis Bonk.
He/she needs some sleep!
"So references are rubbish, science can't be used to disprove past theories and you need to become Curtis Bonk."
You must have read a different article to the one above I read. I did not get that was the posters impression. I thought the poster agreed with the science bit but not the continuos cristisism of older theorists. That would be a fair comment - although the psoter did go on a bit themselves.
NLP, like bumblebees according to the scientists, shouldn't be able to fly, but it does. Say what you want about "empirical evidence." The best evidence is actual experience. Have a reputable instructor show you how to use it. Try it. See if it works. Oh, and BTW, Tomas Szasz has no 'h' in his name, and if you're going to reference his work, you should do so with an actual quote, not generalized bullshit. Szasz is appalled by traditional therapies and labels, which is very in line with the presuppositions of NLP. So called "scienfitically validated" therapies are what he rails against.
I prefer gestalt to NLP.
NLP seems to say that we just make ourselves up. My conviction is that authenticity is possible. This fits more easily within gestalt.
Scientific studies may not support something for numbers of reasons. Poor design and lack of statistical power. Design is especially important when dealing with human relationships. So whether the studies invalidate NLP is an open question for me.
Thanks for the post. Evan
In reply to Tom Eagles: Tom, the old bumblebee ploy will simply not get you anywhere. I’ve heard this same old nag from pseudoscientists of all stripes, including scientologists. Fact: Scientists have tested whether bumblebees can fly, and how well etc. There is a current research stream on this subject. Results: Yes they can fly. Fact: Scientists have tested NLP. No it doesn’t fly at all and doesn’t work. It failed the test decades ago, and is still failing the test. The theories failed the test. The applications failed the test. You can consider this a test of the claim that NLP is somehow a persuasion powerhouse. You fail the test. You do pass at pseudoscience though. You are promoting a pseudoscience. Your arguments are pseudoscientific. NLP is a pseudoscience that is supported by a cult network of self serving pseudoscientists who have a distinct disliking of science. All the research reviews (including the National Research Council (1988) have concluded that NLP is ineffective. Since then NLP is generally associated with Scientology, the Emin, Landmark Education, Primal Scream Therapy, NLP shamanism, occult and a range of other new age kicks. Why? Because its in the same historical category of quackery, and they all use the same anti-science ploys. NLP is classed by serious researchers as a new age/new alternative religious following. Pseudoscientists emphasize recruitment (“try it for yourself”) over independent empirical evidence. The NLP pseudoscientists (such as yourself) are going to be even more averse to empirical evidence as all the reviews say NLP is bogus. You are promoting a failed intervention. So don’t be surprised when people notice you selling manky old rope that was past its sell by date in the 1970s.
Wow. Who hurt you so bad? Or is this just a case of whatever threatens my beliefs I aim to destroy? No proper NLP practitioner would aim to take over your head or claim to be a practitioner of psychiatry or pschology.
The earth was flat once too! Right?
Hi anonymous
NLP ads are absolutely creaking with inflated claims eg: http://www.nlpmind.com/nlp-practitioner.htm
Or claiming that NLP has something to do with neurolinguistics: http://frostneurolinguistics.com/ , or as in Grinder's training, one huge list of pseudoscientific terminology http://www.nlpcacoach.com/coach/programinfo.htm and my favourite - Holding the Space-way of the Shaman Multi-tasking drill. Grinder and Bandler both do new age occult rituals on people. These are typical core NLPers who train other NLPers. According to the qualifications they are "proper" NLPers, and by the looks of it, a proper NLPer is just a proper charlatan. Sorry to show you up, but the evidence is all over the web. Ignore reality at your own embarrassment. NLP is just a cult of quackery spouting charlatans and vacuous followers. D.Harrison
Any publicity is GOOD publicity.
Science Is one thing and bashing everyone that has experienced positive things with NLP is another how can such things be said about NLP or EFT or any other possible cures for problems. the problem with science is that if they cant prove it, it must not be true we have a universe full of stuff that cant be proved doesnt mean it aint real. also don't blame NLP or any other thing that someone has taken advantage of the scientific community does it all the time with pharmacutical medication. which results in alot more deaths than any of the above things your bashing only a retard would think like that.
Although I can understand why people would see NLP as an occult, I think there are better and more beneficial ways of looking at this, When I struggled with my own criticism of NLP, I took my training down to some of the things I thought were most valuable. Maybe it's the way that I use the techniques, it is a creative approach, and molds into the new philosophies of my generation, but I have helped people completely change their lives for the better with the help of NLP. I helped someone get rid of their allergies, this person was taking medication for 2 years, and stopped needing it completely. I've helped someone go from saying, he was completely afraid of public speaking, to saying, he can't wait to public speak. Having a full belief in one session that all the stuff that held him back was gone, and he felt much better. We can have a negative attitude toward any therapy, and of course you'll find what you're looking for, you don't have to be gullible to benefit from it, gullibility won't help, and might make you eventually believe someone is trying to take over your head. So will avoiding NLP completely. After my years of frustration really looking at it, I took it simply, I use a few techniques. Helping someone change their beliefs should be quick and positive.
I have had some incredible experiences with NLP. Still I understand the controversy, it's limiting to put too much faith in NLP, but i can't deny that when I use the techniques as an art infused with many other learnings, great pieces of art inside the person are created. I am not a follower of NLP, as I have been very lucky to know brilliant people in my life who far exceed the teachings of NLP, but NLP is a good start if you are open and can think for yourself. I haven't seen anyone give any real or exact points that backs up these unsupportive ideas. It seems like the unsupportive comments have no evidence, real stories, or atleast a way of looking at more than one point of view. Still, even though I use it effectively, I enjoy the controversy because there's a possibility of all of us growing from it.
I think that you can tell something about NLP by the company it keeps.Just look at any New Age type publication and you will find it crawling with people who offer,crystal healing,reiki,past life regression,life balancing and of course the ever popular NLP.In fact a lot of these people offer all of these things as alternatives or life style choices for therapy.When I find that an NLP Master Practitioner also claims they channel discarnate entities etc my first impulse is to run for my life{or my wallet}.I speak as a person who has done some training in NLP myself as a Psychotherapist and now would warn anyone from ever considering it for a microsecond.There are a lot of flakes and frauds out there and take care of your mind by not giving it to them.
The research speaks for itself. NLP failed the tests. You still get believers. NLP is mentioned in sociology of religion textbooks in the same breath as scientology and other occult oriented subjects. NLP is a discredited intervention.
The only reason some people hang onto it is because its quasi-religious rituals and presuppositions cater for the insecure and science-illiterate.
There are people who say NLP, the enneagram, astrology, physiognomy, aura reading, remote viewing, scientology, time line therapy, wicca, voodoo, urine therapy, all work. There are testimonials galore to all the above.
Science indicates that the conceptual backgrounds to the above are erroneous and fraught with bad thinking. Common sense says that its all pseudoscience. Social psychology, would call it misguided quackery.
NLP is a term that oozes fake scientific credibility. If a practitioner continues to practice and push NLP after being shown the evidence of NLP's utter failure to stand up to scientific scrutiny, then that practitioner is just a fraud.
If you want to believe in the new age cult of NLP then go ahead. But misinformation about the brain is rife enough, and you'd be doing society a great disservice if you spout NLP bullshit as if it is something to do with legit science, human resource research, or if you say that it "works" in any sort of evidence based way.
NLP is just a new age cult.
Maybe y'all should go look up the recent events surrounding NLP "master" Carmine Baffa. That should straighten you out right quick.
http://www.truecrimeweblog.com/2008/04/fall-of-carmine-baffa.html
Just for the record, they now know how bumblebees fly and it is all quite scientific - they just hadn't taken certain aerodynamic concepts into consideration apparently, to do with air pressure above and below the wing or something (I'm no aeronaut - sorry).
Regarding NLP, from what I have gathered it's the old case of nothing's new under the sun. Those shiny apples promising so much hidden knowledge only to lure you into an insular hell. Don't trust pseudoscientists bearing gifts.
Sure, the Baffa and Bandler stories are also covered on this article
http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#
Pretty informative read, and I dare say the most realistic version on Knol. Certainly more scientifically oriented than the Wikipedia version (that looks like its run by NLPers).
Cheers
Charlie
I really don't get how he can "demolish" EFT or CBT.
EFT has definitly some studies that prove its effectiveness (of course compared to placebo effect in a scientific study).
CBT has tons of studies and evidence backing its effectiveness up. For example there are studies comparing it with the placebo effect or anti depressant medics with the result that CBT is more effective. There are very very much studies proving CBT so i don't get how you can possibly "demolish" something that has so much research backing it up.
To NLP: NLP has some bullshit included concerning the cues or the representational systems. However it has some elements of other disciplines such as hypnosis which also has a huge backup of studies and also has some similarities with CBT which is, as mentioned above, very well researched and effective.
This is funny...
NLP works, it's been proven to work..
My advice is, take an NLP class, go into it with an open mind, and you'll find out it's a very valid modality.
There's TONS of logic and reasoning, and more than that, it WORKS...
Hypnotists have known for YEARS that their practice can help someone to stop smoking, lose weight, and other things, MUCH MUCH faster than traditional psychotherapy.
But it is still not recognized in the mainstream as valid - despite REPEATED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (and yes, scientific studies) towards it's effectiveness.
Bandler and Grinder have taken NLP in a path where they don't wish to be known as "scientific" - probably because studies cost a lot of money, just to be accepted by a bunch of people who spent too long in a university.
Say what you want, I guess this is a big rally. The republicans can all hate on the democrats, and the democrats can all hate on the republicans. None of the arguments are logical, but they make you feel good, right?
So keep dissing it if you'd like, as long as it gives you a sense that you are significant or have any common sense.
"I must be right, because I have a PhD!"
Well, "anonymous"
Common sense tells me that you are trying to sell NLP.
The typical mantra of the snakeoil salesman is to say "try it for yourself"
Its not as if it hasn't been tested. Its not only something that has failed testing. It is pseudoscience in concept. The sort of crap that NLPers sell is basically misinformation about the brain. Its all left/right mythology, eye movements, body language, and any new age fluff that sounds fancy at the time.
The effectiveness of hypnosis? The sort of unqualified claims you have made show that you are likely a thoroughgoing pseudoscientist. You favor relativism over independent testing. You display the characteristics of a pseudoscientist.
Clinical hypnosis has some support for a limited number of interventions. It is not the all powerful panacea you make it out to be.
NLP takes hypnosis and turns it into past lives therapy, psychic viewing, authority control and stage hypnosis, adds confirmation bias and basically snakeoils it into tacky new age manuals and subliminal cd sets.
In fact: NLP has been recognized as among a TOP TEN MOST DISCREDITED interventions.
http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2
NLP gets first place as the most laughable collection of quackery of the 21st century. And its been up against some pretty stiff competition.
George McGregor
well, this is interesting. I have trained fundamental and traditional hypnosis for the past 16 years and cynically refer to NLP as Neurotic Learning Processes. In my opinion it has discredited clinical hypnosis because it is usually passed of to the gullible as hypnosis which it is not. I weas in Malaysia recently where it was being MLM'd. All that NLP has done is create a plethora of would be clinicians mostly with with no real mental health or counselling qualifications and set them loose on society as highly skilled and trained practitioners. Master practitioner in NLP only $10,000 and then go and automatically become a highly skilled therapist, never mind a few years of supervision and mentoring, what a joke. Still what did Adolph Hitler say? "The Greater Part of a Nation Will More Readily Fall For a Big Lie Than What it will a Small One.
NLP My Arse
Hypnodoc
If you are a so called NLP practitioner, please don't refer to what you do as hypnosis, because it isn't. Hypnosis is an identifiable altered state of mind that can be measured and shown via a CAT scan and also altered brain frequency resonance. Hypnosis also has 1000s of high quality correctly applied academic studies prooving its existance and ability to assist with some psycho somatic and psychological conditions, usually mostly effective when used in conjunction with other valid therapies.
NLP on the other hand has a lot of people making a lot of money, some obscene amounts, either training or applying a lot of self proclaimed heresay techniques to an often gullible public who need help not another bill to pay. For example I have never seen or read of any person under going painless surgury with the use of NLP 1000s have with the use of hypnosis.
So please stick to the name NLP and don't insult the value of true hypnosis.
I have found NLP techniques to be very effective in business. I have also seen people overcoming anxiety and improve academic performance as a result. I am not related to field of NLP but have had some training, and have some experiential evidence. Some of the criticisms made in this blog are unsustainable. If a criminal misuses NLP for is own profit it doesn't invalidate it. Just as a hammer used by a criminal doesn't negate the usefulness of the hammer(we use hammers for DIY right?). NLP is a set of tools, that's it. They work well for certain things, less for others. Let's end the paranoia please.
JM
Putting forward a scientific case for the invalidity of NLP is not paranoia. Why do NLP proponents like you use such strange language. I'm in no way 'paranoid' about NLP. I just think it's unscientific junk and the ebnefits illusory.
JM
Putting forward a scientific case for the invalidity of NLP is not paranoia. Why do NLP proponents like you use such strange language. I'm in no way 'paranoid' about NLP. I just think it's unscientific junk and the ebnefits illusory.
Post a Comment
<< Home