Hi all

I know there is a tendency for people to criticize scientists here, but I am going to deal with this one differently. Instead of critiquing scientists, I am going to work in parallel with them. Instead of “I’m right, you’re wrong” I am going to work towards agreement and forward movement.
Here is the relevant neuroscience site:

NeuroLogica Blog » Neurolinguistic Programming and other Nonsense


Prof Novella gives an interesting illustration of NLP with Patrick and his modeling behavior. And he gives information from Wikipedia and a blog, which show the research reviews of all the relevant controlled studies on NLP.

He says that although there was some merit in NLP in the beginning, the last 30 years have shown it to be bunk.

I think we can deal with the emotive stuff with the red hat first. Bunk is an emotive term, and we can probably place that together with other terms such as misleading crap, salesy, wishy washy, woo, tacky, glitzy, showy, and so on.

With that out of the way, taking the basic information itself (white hat), we can simply lay that down in a more parallel fashion
We can say that we have tested NLP on an individual basis and found that when you do it flexibly, it works.

However, NLP was tested for 30 years and it was found to be erroneous in concept, and ineffective in practice.

Other information includes: NLP continues to be used, it has a wide following, people still believe in it and make money out of it.

Yellow hat (the positive side): A lot of people like it. It’s inspirational. It allows us to explore. It gets us interested in neuroscience, and so on.
Black hat: Having failed the test on efficacy makes it less convincing (as long as people know the result), and its concepts are erroneous (again, if people know the difference). NLP gives people misconceptions about the nature of the brain (its pseudoscientific).


Green hat: Combine NLP more closely with alternative health. That provocation tends to lead to a stronger belief system. Let’s take the neuro concept and re-organize it. Instead of thinking of it in terms of pathways, consider it in terms of connectivity. That is connectivity in human terms (connecting with self, connecting with others).

OK, we cannot ignore the science, so if we were to admit that NLP is only an excuse or conceptually erroneous framework for interacting with self and people (on newsgroups, in counseling), then that is its usefulness.

So then what is NLP for? It’s for keeping yourself and others company while things get better, or worse on their own. It’s similar to taking on the role of monk, nun, druid or priest.

Blue hat:
The way forward may be to use NLP covertly on those outside the NLP group. Basically, to make sure that you don’t spread misconceptions, but to help them (with other stuff) at the same time.

To gain value from NLP, use it as if you are such a thing as a “positive thinking devotee”. You develop your knowledge of NLP, allow yourself to gain a higher purpose in life by covertly helping people without charging money for it, and reflect the practice back to those in the group who also derive purpose from using NLP.

In making NLP more of a belief system, it gains value, as long as you don’t use it to spread misconception. Basically believe in NLP, and use its processes, but don’t tell people outside the group that you are doing so. The group of NLP people becomes the belief group. We benefit by talking with like minded people who have a similar liking for the mixture of positive thinking and erroneous psychological concepts. People outside the group gain because we offer them vague and meaningless platitudes (which might lead to non-specific benefit sometimes).

OK, there’s plenty of suggestions there, and I’m sure you could explore more.

But firstly, what would be other alternatives/combinations for the way forward?


Rich

Deleted

Hi James

The idea is to move beyond debate (yay nay etc).

Feel free to make a suggestion. 6 hats method is fine, but use any other you feel like.


PS, not making any claim to originality in my ideas. Here is another useful provocation to run with

The Gospel according to Edward De Bono - Management Today

Has he gone mad, or is there something of value there?


Rich

RmtView wrote:

But firstly, what would be other alternatives/combinations for the way forward?

The way forward will depend on the outcome, is that established ?

Sure Cameron, the outcome is forward movement

That is: Design/s

NLP has been evolving to some extent, and had problems being stuck also. So we can think about a way forward for NLP that takes into account the most relevant factors and avoids being stuck.

The approach I have taken in contrast with basic judgment/yesno thinking is to take into account relevant information (white), feelings (red), positive (yellow), negative (black), generative possibility (green), to move forward (blue).

You can use whatever approach you like, thought the outcome is positive forward movement via broad exploration and idea generation.

Rich

Rich,
The main problem with the professor's blog, is that it is assertion based (his assertions) and not science or research based.
It is therefore, IMO, not worth a response.
A recent check of research on NLP and neuroscience (try Googling) shows that it's basic assumptions are more and more being supported by neuroscience rather than the reverse.
Sorry for the cold water, NOT.
Greg

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

The funny thing is that NLP doesn't exist as a thing and it is therefore invalid to say 'NLP is' anything. (And we're talking about being scientific?) That's getting caught up in the linguistic distortion. (However, since NLP is bunk, linguistic distortion doesn't happen and therefore NLP actually must exist as a thing. Right?)

Seriously, if we are to have any kind of useful discussion about what works and what doesn't, we have to move away from generalisations like 'NLP is...' and chunk down to specific claims that have been examined.

So, what, specifically, is 'bunk'?

Is it the idea that people don't think in pictures, sounds, feelings, etc?

Is it that the phobia technique doesn't work?

Is it that moving pictures away doesn't decrease your response to them?

Is it that tag questions don't work as a technique of influence?

Is it that people don't look up when they are visualising?

Is it that asking questions like 'How do you know?' and 'What stops you?' doesn't shift people's thinking?

Avoiding the specifics just allows people to vaguely dance around one another with clever-sounding rhetoric. Well, we could play that game but that's not going to move anything forward.

Cheers

Thank you Stephen

Its the view of NLP people that NLP works

Its the view of the above neuroscientists et al that NLP doesn't work and is conceptually wrong/pseudoscientific.

And you quite correctly seek to identify what NLP people view NLP to be in this particular situation. You are not really seeking to explore the other view, but never mind. Lets run with it anyway.

So you say NLP is not a concept or idea. I think we may be a bit stuck if that is so. It is actually quite a pseudoscientific argument. However, when you treat it with a bit of water logic, things could be adjusted to fit other more consistently expressed views.




Lets suppose NLP really is so "up for grabs". Lets say NLP is whatever you want it to be. So you are allowed to create a new stream of NLP:

How about making a totally non-pseudoscientific school of NLP. That means, work only with non-misleading concepts, that connect correctly with the rest of the world of neuroscience/psychology etc, and use techniques that have been found to work empirically, and not use pseudoscientific argument or other pseudoscientific trappings.

That seems to be what you are indicating. I suggest its one of a set of ways forward.

How do you propose it be done?

Rich

good grief here we go again!

I have only been watchin this thread to see if anyone would take your bate!

I have to say Rich you are very good teasing a response from the forum.

You are avoiding my point. And distorting my words. I never said 'NLP is not a concept or idea'. I said it didn't exist as a thing, which it doesn't. Distorting isn't very rigorous or scientific, is it? And I never said anything about creating a 'new' stream of NLP.

Let me re-state what I said, in simpler terms.

The way to have a rigorous debate is to stop generalising ('NLP is...') and enumerate and examine the validity of specific claims.

So, one of the claims made by NLP is that 'tag questions' are useful in influencing people. Valid or invalid?

Another is that the phobia technique works. Valid or invalid?

Another is that it's most useful to think about what you want instead of what you don't want. Valid or invalid?

Another is that people delete, distort and generalise. Valid or invalid?

And so on. (You could easily scroll up and see others.)

Here's a key thing:

I, personally, am not interested in whether the claims are scientific or not scientific. That's an academic argument. I am only interested in whether the skills and models taught work.

Cheers

Lenny, shame on you for also taking the bait.. Arghh now I have also took a bite, ohh the bitter taste!

To think in parallell to Rich is to follow 5 key points...

1 Dont speak about the flaws with the scientific model.

2 DO NOT speak about the flaws with the scientific model.

3 Take an approach that everyone is entitled to their own view so long as you appreciate your opinion is just an opinion and that ultimatly his way is right and more desierable. You may have a map of the world but when you are ready Rich will show you his terratory.

4 You can have a view so long as you bow down to his and appreciate his hireachy of views in any debate.

5 If you want to argue for your view then you must do so using his methodology and view otherwise any valid points you make against his view will be ignored.

Just remember two lines that run paralell never meet, if your views never meet then Rich will assume that you are too inadequate to see his perspective and that you do not choose your view based but your inferior ability leaves you with this lacking view and not on the fact that you are actually expressing the outcomes of a thought through choice.

When I read the first line of this thread I simply laughed. For someone who claims 'scientific evidence' is essential to then claim...

"I know there is a tendency for people to criticize scientists here"

is just a joke.

Thanks

Matt Sims (BSc)

Lol Matt look I did it again.......opps!

I think you the nail on your head with your post..........I'm I'm not even interested the in content of what Rich has to say, and i'm only slightly interested in the processes he uses to get a discussion where is interested in no one else opinion but his own. Talk about loving the sound of your own words.

Personal, imo.....I think he needs to get out more lol

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

RmtView wrote:

Sure Cameron, the outcome is forward movement

Movement towards determining whether or not NLP works ? I would agree with what Stephen was saying, What specifically works and what specifically doesn't in NLP, small chunks.

RmtView wrote:

NLP has been evolving to some extent, and had problems being stuck also. So we can think about a way forward for NLP that takes into account the most relevant factors and avoids being stuck.

I think many would disagree with those claims.

Why do we want or need 'forward movement' as you define it ? What is the goal of that ?

Hi Cameron

Yes some analysis can be useful. But it would likely need to cover principles, rather than just atoms or bits and techniques. The principles and concepts would better describe the "system" and help design improvements.

There will be specific parts we disagree upon, and elements where we can move forward. Context is important in any case. That's why I've been using the six hats method (to encourage exploration from a context at a time).

Moving forward in this case, basically means finding the line of least resistance so we can move forward with NLP over time in a way that reduces pseudoscientific argument/activity/writing from NLP people, and reduces criticism/bad press etc from important outsiders.

Clearly ditching NLP would be one way forward, perhaps the easiest. But I don't think we should be lazy about this. Exploring alternatives is important and I believe will be productive.

Of the above alternatives, which do you feel are the most likely avenues to explore?


Rich

Once again, you summarise and distort. 'NLP is not a thing' = 'NLP is pseudoscience' is your equivalence, not mine.

You keep asking for an avenue. I keep answering. You avoid. The alternative I keep pointing out is to stop generalising with 'NLP is...' and get examine specific claims.

Remember, NLP is not 'a thing'. It is a label for a set of skills and models. Testing whether NLP (big chunk) 'is' this or 'is' that is an erroneous approach given that NLP is not 'a (single) thing'. If you are to rigorously examine whether skills and models taught under the banner of NLP work or not, you have to examine those skills and models.

Saying NLP is pseudoscience is like saying Physics is wrong. Well, some things in Physics are definitely right. Some are in doubt. So do you throw the whole field of Physics out because it contains some ideas that are unproven and in doubt?

I also reiterate the point that arguing whether something is scientific or not is an academic discussion, not a useful one. The useful discussion is whether the skills and models functionally work.

Cheers

Stephen I am agreeing with you that we need to go with what works

I have offered a set of quite broad alternatives above.

Re-pasted:

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)



Do any of them allow for your suggestion, or would you like to add another broad category in the list of alternatives?

Rich

My suggested approach is: 'Examine what works'.

Cheers

OK, good

Removing what has been found not to work within the accepted body of neuroscience and according to empirical studies sounds like a good idea.

So, exploring that avenue, and feel free to add your own suggestions:

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

E.g. NLP Modeling,
eye accessing,
breathing, body language for callibration, for persuasion, and so on.
Remove thinking preferences (VAK), and so on.
Remove any association with energy that goes beyond oxygen, blood, and glucose.

Can you think of anything else that doesn't work or is incongruent/inconsistent conceptually?

The list of remaining elements is still quite large. It includes simple principles such as the use of the imagination, choosing different perspectives, the use of positive thinking, empathy and so on.

That approach would leave NLP probably still as a pseudoscience as is, but at least one step on the way to becoming more parallel in thinking with neuroscientists and linguists.

So can you suggest any other particular concepts or techniques of NLP that strike you as being similarly pseudoscientific? I remember looking through Dilt's encyclopedia online. There are probably a few things you might suggest from that source???

Rich