RmtView wrote:

Remove anything that does not work in terms of complying with neuroscience, linguistics or normal psychology concepts.

Another "distortion by 'summarisation'"!

I never included the rider 'in terms of complying with ....'

I am only interested in 'does it work'.

Cheers

Hi Stephen

According to the research quoted (the empirical research that we have access to, assessed by those independend researchers who know the difference and who convincingly know the difference), those techniques listed above do not work conceptually, and they do not work as per empirical testing in the way NLP authors/books has presented them.

Stating to do what works is neither here nor there, though it is a general (perhaps overgeneral) direction. Its a common pseudoscientific platitude though and you need to be careful with it. If it is used as a kind of excuse system after the fact, then its pseudoscientific, but as a general starting direction it is ok.

Clearly some things do work. They may not "be" NLP, but that does actually seem to be the benefit of NLP, in that it is not completely "set".

So perhaps you could list the things that are or have been taught in the general area of NLP that do work and have been tested to work empirically?

You might start with elements or techniques that have the highest likelihood of success probabilistically. Feel free to list and don't worry about order too much.

Rich

Rich,

From a "neuroscience view" ALL of the research cited is bunk. Right now, in general, there are only a few kinds of research that will impress a neuroscientist and none of the research that you obsessively post again and again fits the criteria. Correlative studies and qualitative observations mean diddley to a neuroscientist as they don't actually tell anything about what happens in the brain. Right now there are two kinds of research of interest in the field:

1. Brain imaging/brain mapping studies. A neuroscientist wants to know "What is happening in the brain?" The technology for these has only been widely available in the last ten years - and remains fairly expensive. These studies have not been performed with specific NLP techniques yet - nor have they been performed with most "techniques" of psychology. It's all too new.

2. Genomic studies. With the human genome mostly mapped, genomic studies can tell us what genes are activated by specific techniques. A neuroscientist might work with a genomic researcher to determine if genes related to specific neurological activity are expressed.

There are some promising hypotheses to be explored with NLP techniques. For instance, do physical mirroring/matching techniques activate the mirror neuron system? So far, general research into mirror neurons suggests that they do. Do NLP interventions activate gene expression for neuroplasticity and learning (i.e. creating new neural pathways?).

If you want a good paradigm for research, check into the recent brain-mapping studies conducted with meditators, the recent brain imaging studies conducted with hypnosis, and the genomic studies presently being used to research the gene expression of pharmaceuticals.

Or, you can keep re-posting your pseudo-neuroscientific claims and we'll continue to berate or ignore them.

Hi Philip

The neuroimaging studies are generally abused in the media, and by pseudoscientists. There are a lot of good things, and too many bad things about it. Its too visual and sensational to avoid abuse by those who see associations and treat them as cause-effect.

But on the parallel side of your statements, there are definitely a lot of workable things that you do, that are not included in the list of non-effect ideas and interventions. And I believe I am talking about the stuff that counts, including perspective and imagination/imagery related interventions.

Now if you could turn away from the pseudoscientific arguments, and focus on the things that are parallel to a neuroscientist, neurolinguist, and a clinical psychologist's view, then that one avenue (removing the pseudoscientific interventions) may be satisfactory.

There are other avenues though. Have another look at the alternatives mentioned above, and maybe present another of your own.

Rich

Seriously guys, why continue wasting your time on this?

RmtView wrote:

This thread requires a brief summary before moving forward. Feel free to add more to it.

Novella (and others quoted) have a view that NLP is pseudoscientific and erroneous, and ineffective.

NLP people say its highly effective

Some say NLP does not exist as a thing (which means it can't be tested, so its pseudoscientific).

Some people are questioning the need to actually explore other views, and adding plenty of ad hominem to try to support their view.



As I said at the top of the thread, this isn't a critique of Novella, or of NLP. Its an exploration of the issues and a search for a parallel way forward.

Ok, just transposing from some other threads, there seem to be a set of alternatives:

Ignore people who say NLP is pseudoscience

Criticize articles that say NLP is pseudoscience

Determine which elements are pseudoscience, and design a way forward from there.

Move to a non-pseudoscientific intervention framework/or combine with one

Move it to less sciencecostume state (move it away from pretending to be scientific)

Start afresh completely, (blank slate NLP)


The first two would not really count as parallel thinking. However the remaining broad avenues forward, or combinations therein, seem to be fairly positive/decisive.

Any preference, suggestions, or creative ideas?

Rich

Hi Rich

How about the 'NLP is not science' perspective as an alternative?

I'm sure someone else must have asked this, but why is it so important to contort to the criteria of 'science' at all?

Do you think that 'science' has any limitations?

All the very best

James

And don't think this means I am getting sucked in to this discussion!!!

Here's a closing thought...

Is NLP science, psuedoscience or just not science?

Is science reality, pseudoreality or just not reality?

James

RmtView wrote:

Hi Philip

The neuroimaging studies are generally abused in the media, and by pseudoscientists. There are a lot of good things, and too many bad things about it. Its too visual and sensational to avoid abuse by those who see associations and treat them as cause-effect.

Flimsy argument at best. Whatever "the media" or "pseudoscientists" may or may not do, these are the tools of neuroscience - notably absent from anything you've cited.

NEUROLOGIST: We think there may be something wrong with your brain, Rich. I've scheduled you for an MRI exam.

RICH: Brain imaging studies have been abused in the media. Pseudoscience! I refuse to even consider it!

NEUROLOGIST: The repetitious behavior is disturbing. You might have an aneurysm or a lesion. We need to find out.

RICH falls silent as a brain hemorrhage destroys his speech center.

Time for an interluded!



Never under estimate the older generation!

I took my dad to the mall the other day to buysome new shoes.

We decided to grab a bite at thefood court.

I noticed he was watching a teenagersitting next to him.
The teenager had spiked hair inall different colors: green, red, orange, and blue.My dad kept staring at him. The teenager would lookand find him staring every time.

When the teenager had enough, he sarcasticallyasked, "What's the matter old man, never doneanything wild in your life?"

Knowing my Dad, I quickly swallowed my food sothat I would not choke on his response; knowing hewould have a good one. And in classic style he didnot bat an eye in his response.

"Got drunk once and had sex with a peacock...I wasjust wondering if you were my son."


Please continue!

Hi James R

You said "How about the 'NLP is not science' perspective as an alternative?"

Yes, I would place that with the possibility:

"Move it to less sciencecostume state (move it away from pretending to be scientific)"

Your question is the pre-cursor/higher level perspective to that sort of suggestion

Feel free to explore that avenue: e.g.

The complaint is that NLP is dressed up as science, even though its not science. Which makes it pseudoscientific.

It involves all sorts of wierd terms that just don't meet up with neuroscience or psychology. Its the "fake" quality that could somehow be removed in order to make it less pseudoscientific.

Following on from your suggestion, it sounds like there could be several practical ways to do that:

Remove jargon
Replace jargon with accurate terms
Remove wild claims
Replace them with accurate claims about efficacy

So, representational system could be replaced with "sense". Submodality could be replaced with something like "Imagery change/image manipulation"

Feel free to add your own...

Rich

james_t wrote:

Seriously guys, why continue wasting your time on this?

Lol I only narrowly avoided joining in on this... I was bored, but it turns out, not THAT freaking bored!

Mog, you just joined in!

OK, I'll run with that

You are bored with the idea of exploring this single stream - NLP and neuroscience. Could be because some members of NLP are really treating it as a cult that cannot explore ideas of change, could simply mean that you hate exploring your own assumptions and you want to stop others from doing so.

So we can split the idea using the provocation:

NLP is not pseudoscience because NLP is not NLP (which is basically what people are illogically trying to say)

So how can NLP not be NLP?

Lets say things have evolved. NLP has evolved away from itself:

So NLP is not Neuro Linguistic Programming any more


NLP is not pseudoscientific, but neurolinguistic programming is pseudoscientific

So somehow you can learn to do NLP, but not neurolinguistic programming.



Thats a fairly interesting provocation. So how can it be implemented as a practical idea?

Rich

james_t wrote:

Seriously guys, why continue wasting your time on this?

Watching Rich post is fun ! What can we learn from his posts ?

Rich - ' Thats a fairly interesting provocation. So how can it be implemented as a practical idea? '

Pray tell .

Hi Cameron

I'm sure you could manage just the same


OK, just to get you started, here’s just one avenue of forward movement from that provocation:
Neuro linguistic programming is a misleading and pseudoscientific title, so get rid. The acronym NLP is OK (not perfect) with the + added.

Now Living Positively+

Neo Learning Positivity+

NLP+
Neo-Learning Plus+

Book titles can read “Neo-Learning Plus+” . You can call it a new branch of NLP (NLP+) if you like.

Neo-Learning can be defined in terms of update/flexibility rather than subjectivity (which seems to be inherently confusing and misleading).

Neo-learning because things change faster nowadays, because we learn by update, and we need to admit to update. That is an admission that learning is always new. Instead of everything being subjective, you can have everyone can change their mind (useful intelligence, rather than intelligence trap).

You can admit to being inspired by Bandler and Grinder et al, and some of their attitudes about flexibility, but have moved forward without the new age confusions and pseudoscience.

NLP+ can be updated according to multiple perspectives (that includes science findings). If something is phrased pseudoscientifically in one book, then the next edition it is updated, and websites can do it sooner. If there is a technique that has failed empirical testing then the same deal. All updates (all learning) should be admitted to by the author (and applauded by all reasonable people probably).

All present pseudoscientific ideas can go. E.g. eye accessing, notions of map-territory/create reality (multiple perspectives is less confusing and not new age at all). The erroneous and outdated linguistics metamodel can go.

There’s plenty left over. Lots of actionable stuff to teach in seminars such as goal setting, project management, mental rehearsal (not just magically imagining goals), being aware of your environs and resources, connecting with others, time line metaphor, empathy (not the confusing mirroring stuff) and so on. Concepts about neurons (but stop all the bullshit about left-right brain and eyes, and don’t go anywhere near energy unless it’s about blood, oxygen and sugars).

Lots of interesting stories and actions on being resilient, from juggling, to riding bikes etc.

No pre-emptive excuses for why it may not work (stop saying it doesn’t work for all people in all situations). Call it a suggestion that is up for empirical testing. It can be updated in future.

Foster reasonable expectation. Not all inspiration with no guidelines for moving forward.

OK, that’s one line to take, any additions/alternatives?
Rich

RmtView wrote:

Yes Greg, its true that some people believe that googling is a valid research method.

You can ignore the views of Novella, Carroll, Sharpley, Druckman, Drenth, Devilly, Levelt, Corballis, and others totally if you don't want to explore their point of view.


Otherwise, you can explore and design a way forward in parallel with outside views. There are many alternatives. You are limited only by your imagination.

Rich

Hi Rich,

It seems you want to be both professionally and personally provocative. Too bad.

I did NOT say that Googling was a valid research method, although my reading via Google Scholar and the Dana Foundation's publications support my assertion regarding a number of NLP basics and neuroscience.

If you actually showed an interest in discussion and learning rather than provocation I'd be prepared to continue. But specifics seem substantially missing from your contributions.

Maybe next thread.

Greg

Ok, perhaps if you quoted the actual papers and their conclusions, then we would have some extra information to discuss/explore with, apart from the review papers by Devilly, Sharpley, Druckman et al and so on.

Remember the actual goal of this thread though, it is about exploring the views of those people (especially neuroscientists such as Novella) who's view is that NLP is erroneious conceptually, ineffective in practice, and pseudoscientific.

The goal is to be able to work with those views (and people) productively, rather than critique them. To use the information productively and think in parallel to generate more productive ways forward.

It is about getting closer to the actual mental model of the neuroscientists in question (NLP+ modeling, rather than superficial pseudoscientific NLP modeling), and finding a line of agreement and moving forward to something of value, especially in terms of flexibility.

There are quite a few alternatives as far as have been presented so far. And plenty of avenues to explore for those with parallel and productive thinking in mind.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Ok, perhaps if you quoted the actual papers and their conclusions, then we would have some extra information to discuss/explore with, apart from the review papers by Devilly, Sharpley, Druckman et al and so on.Rich

That's still not very specific?

I'm willing to bet your entire knowledge of NLP comes from wikipedia?

Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pasted from wikipedia

Critics argue that the basic theoretical assumptions of NLP and strong claims of efficacy presented in books, workshops and promotional material have not been accompanied by empirical research. The majority of psychological and experimental research published in the 1980s in The Journal of Counseling Psychology was not supportive of the claims that matching preferred representational systems and sensory predicates enhanced the client-counselor relationship. Critics argue that the lack of empirical support and exaggerated claims indicate questionable science, pseudoscience, New Age[14] or outdated[15] psychotherapeutic technique. While there have been some efforts within NLP to improve its practice, recent research is spread thinly across various disciplines and the field remains splintered.

Sound like anyone we know?

Oh my God!

I am shocked - even though it makes a lot of sense.

Matt

RmtView wrote:

Ok, perhaps if you quoted the actual papers and their conclusions, then we would have some extra information to discuss/explore

Oh you mean like that entire page full of references to a whole stack of papers and their conclusions whose url Artur posted in another thread, and which you more or less point blank refused to acknowledge - and have continued to do so ever since? Great idea - let's bring those to the table.

Or you could just keep ignoring all that stuff and continue to pretend that all of the dodgey premises you rely on are true.

You know the ones:

> the great big imaginary straw man you rely on for your incessant references to pseudoscience - that NLPers claim that NLP is a science. (Such a claim is, after all, required in order to nominate anything to be pseudoscience. Finger painting and kayaking aren't proper sciences either - but that doesn't make them pseudosciences, it just makes them things people do.)

> your continued use of the definite article to try and suggest that there is some kind of single, definitive position taken by all scientists/skeptics (or at least all the ones who count - thus implicitly invalidating all counterexamples)

> your continued implication that what you post is authoritatively representative of said position

> your presupposition that appeasing those people who think NLP is pseudoscience is some kind of important problem which requires a solution

For all practical purposes, everything you post assumes the validity of those four claims, which validity is not only unsupported by any evidence - but is also straight out impossible for you to establish, in all four cases.

So do I expect any novel behaviour on your part, in response to this post? Not really. I pretty much expect you to try to outframe this post and then pose a question/challenge that presupposes the validity of your position - just like you usually do whenever someone calls you on a bit of misrepresentation. No, this post is mostly for the benefit of the folks playing along at home ...




... and just incidentally (in case you were thinking of throwing one of your favourite terms into the mix), my calling attention to the flawed premises you've been relying on is not an example of an ad hominem argument. Suggesting - oh, I don't know - that anybody who overuses phrases like 'ad hominem' and 'logical fallacy' (often inaccurately) to dismiss the arguments of others while simultaneously and consistently employing those very same things to support their own position is unlikely to contribute anything of value ... now that would be an ad hominem argument.


James T

No Lenny, the sources comes from the information presented by Andy Bradbury on his criticism of skeptics dictionary:

Skeptic's Dictionary
The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Knol
Neurolinguistic Programming - a knol by Joe Greenfield

Wikipedia
Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Novella link posted at the top of this thread

and the references and discussion therein. They do seem to have a intra-corroborating consistency.

The sort of modeling I have adopted is the sort that involves actually working to understand what the sources actually mean according to those who hold the view that NLP is pseudoscientific (those who hold a scientific skepticism point of view).

There is more to explore, and plenty more to suggest

Feel free to present any ideas

Rich