The Skeptic's Dictionary

Hi there,

As some of you may already know. there is a website called "The Skeptic's Dictionary", the contents of which were also released as a large format book a few years back, published by John Wiley and Sons.

To put it nicely, the entry on NLP is extremely badly researched, mainly a rant against NLP, but apparently quite widely read (the owner claims something like 500,000 hits a month - albeit for the "dictionary" as a whole)).

Anyway, out of the fullness of my generous nature I decided, a few weeks back, to put fingers to keyboard and write a FAQ that corrected one or two little mistakes on that page.

This has just been uploaded to my website, as FAQ #27

The Skeptic's Dictionary Debacle

It is primarily offered as a source of ideas for anyone who finds someone quoting the original and doesn't care to read the whole thing to answer just one or two points.

Be well

Andy B
Honest Abe's NLP Emporium
Honest Abe's NLP Emporium

I can tell you've put a considerable amount of work, time and effort into it! Great job!

Hi Andy,

Well-written, well-informed and pointedly acerbic as always!

The only point I'll choose to differ with you on is NLP trainings as being marketed as therapy/self-improvement.

I agree that they're not supposed to be therapy.

And in recent years, I've seen a lot of marketing materials by even big named trainers that emphasize the remedial aspects of those trainings.

Further, I know from sources close to some of these events that a fair number of attendees have pretty debilitating behavioural issues and often do multiple courses in hopes of receiving treatment, And this happens, surprisingly enough, with the full awareness of the trainer(s) involved.

(And no, before anyone asks, I'm not naming names. For me, this is about process, not people.)

So while I thought the article you were responding to was shamefully badly researched and badly reasoned, I do wish that NLPers would restrain themselves from acting in ways that prove his point.

Oh, and since I'm more about lighting candles than cursing darkness, I think that it might useful to be more responsible in marketing the trainings by making personal change as a secondary effect of the training, and to focus on the more basic structure and benefits.

If people want to do 'life-changing personal transformation' style events that, incidentally teach a skillset focused on creating and making those changes, great, do that.

Secondly, refer students who have substantial issues to appropriate treatment (changeworkers, doctors, etc.) before or instead of attending training.

After all, if I've got a bad heart, I don't go to Med School so I can learn to do my own open-heart surgery or hope one of the professors does the surgery as a demo when we get to the heart operation part of the curriculum.

And I won't even start on how most NLP patterns are designed for 2 people and don't usually work well or at all when self-applied.

At least it seems to me that might be a great way of doing things. I suspect there might be a significant amount of disagreement with me here and I think that's OK too.

OK, down off my soapbox...

Again, great article Andy, and keep up the good work!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

What is truly amazing and totally mind boggling is the so called -Skeptics, like those behind the afore mentioned site fully support both Psychology & Psychiatry. Why? Well, because they have been around a long time and are supposedly scientific with many great thinkers amongst them. What Skeptics don't like is the new, it scares them.

Psychiatry sessions sitting or lying a person down on a couch to relive many of their experiences, does & does not work depending on the case, how severe the problems are , and skill of the therapist.

What I can say with CERTAINTY is that NLP / Hypnotherapy can achieve FASTER results, than lying a person on a couch empathising with them & talking through their problems. Psychiatry / Psychology may have explanations of why a person has certain phobias , or addictions, etc yet it is very poor and inept at dealing with them, and successfully helping the person.

Let's not forget key issues too on Psychiatry & Psychology they are heavily tied in with the pharmeceutical drug industry - you have a problem, they have a drug to fix it. Rather than do a load of sessions with one person lasting hours, there is far more money to be made by quick appointment - prescription made for drugs, sell them the drugs; they can see several an hour that way.


School shootings Antidepressants Depression & Psychiatrists - Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Look at left click on on 'Psychiatric Drugs' , 'Diagnosis', etc.


If Skeptics fully back Psychiatry & Psychology and regard them as Sciences , whilst attacking things like NLP, let them, it only shows their ignorance and fear of the 'new'.

School shootings Antidepressants Depression & Psychiatrists - Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Look at left click on on 'Psychiatric Drugs' , 'Diagnosis', etc.


If Skeptics fully back Psychiatry & Psychology and regard them as Sciences , whilst attacking things like NLP, let them, it only shows their ignorance and fear of the 'new'.

So you use the Scientologists to support your viewpoint?

Yes, damn these skeptics with their buzzwords like "research" and "evidence".....

But back to those Scientologists...
Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrew Austin,

New someone would mention the dreaded Scientologists!

Actually, regarding Psychiatry a lot of what they say is true. The drug industry being closely linked with it & multi billion empire is fact.

I don't support Scientology nor Scientology beliefs. The website link has enough on Psychiatry in the one place to make it easy reading over several different links.

Here are some NON-Scientology links on Psychiatry :-

Well Mind Association of Minnesota: Alternative Mental Health

THE DARK SITE OF PSYCHIATRY Look at links to articles below.

Yeh, it's blatantly obvious you know next to nothing about Scientology, I do npt support them but at least know what I am talking about.

Andrew, a quick correction for you, about NLP and psychotherapy - "NLP is NOT a form of psychotherapy and never has been" - actually, there is something called NLPt, neurolinguistic psychotherapy, which is now an accepted, legalized form of psychotherapy - from what I understand, at least throughout the whole EU - and which is basically psychotherapy based on nlp techniques and approaches.

Hi Artur,

There is NLPt but NLPt isn't NLP. It's a psychotherapeutic process that takes distinctions from NLP.

In a similar way, I have an electric razor which is not electricity. It just uses electricity to vibrate the blades that cut up... er, I mean, shave my face.

Think chunking and I think you'll get my meaning.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Incidentally , as someone mentioned the dreaded Scientologists, I know several and high ranking one's too. What amazes me is how ignorant they are on things, NLP most have never even heard of it. Hypnotherapy they have warped view it is dangerous and not beneficial. There is much out there that can do far more than Scientology and faster too but as they are in a 'Cult' they might never see it.

Staggering too that Scientology according to them can cure all mental ills, phobias, increase intelligence, etc. Yet something like Smoking they can't stop, hence a rather high proportion of Scientologists being smokers and the great Ron himself chain smoked.

Despite being very against Hypnotherapy, etc, Scientology according to many uses covert Hypnotism :-

YouTube - Inside Scientology: Hypnosis

Anyone thinking NLP / Hypnotherapy courses are expensive, compared to Scientology they are a bargain! And in NLP , etc nobosy really pushes you to take another course & spend more money, sure some may be bit sales orientated and try get you to but most don't.

Andrew, you've put fantastic effort into that. I hope to read more from you in the future. Can you contact them directly with this?

Maybe while you're at it you can fix our lousy entry in wikipedia! Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's ridiculous that the first paragraph people read about our field says it's "unproven".

Hi Sam,

That's easy to do!

1. Go to one of the universities in the world that have an NLP section of their psych departments.
2. Offer to fund well-designed double-blind studies administered by skilled practitioners to test the central ideas in NLP and it's applications.
3. Get these studies published in mainstream peer-reviewed psych journals (Bribery or blackmail of the editors might prove helpful here)
4. Once you have enough of these to outweigh the FUD studies from earlier and the ones that will no doubt be prompted by these new positive studies, then you'll probably be able to talk a Wiki arbitrator into changing that line and freezing it so the 'sceptic' trolls can't change it back.

Wait, maybe that's less easy than I thought... Maybe that's why that article has been a edit-war zone complete with sock puppet wars ever since Wikipedia had an entry on NLP.

Still, if someone's got the money and the time, go or it!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Michael, what's sock puppet? I didn't realize there'd been an effort to improve our entry in wikipedia.

Hi Sam,

Sockpuppet (Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you more information on the rest.

It's ridiculous that the first paragraph people read about our field says it's "unproven".

Interesting point.

As some people here may know, I'm not terribly excited about the idea of "scientific validation" for any aspect of "pure" posychology (anything that involves the physiological/neuroanatomical aspects of psychology is something else again).

Nevertheless, one benefit of researching that FAQ was finding Daniel Schacter's book. I'm only about a third of the way through it, and it is a bit turgid, but there is some really interesting stuff in there which has relevance to NLP - not just the bit where Bandler and Grinder are mentioned.

(BTW, this is a senior faculty member at Harvard (or was in 1996), with 30 years in the business, who includes "Frogs into Princes" in the Bibliography.)

As to skeptics, it is my perception that they tend to be skeptical about everyone but scientists. Big weakness, IMO

Though speaking of skeptics, this might be of interest:

Comments Page

Scroll down to the latter part of the "NLP Papers" section.

Be well

Andy B.

I find skeptics just throw their pendulum too far one way. The problem with most people is they're not balanced. I used to be very natural medicine orientated, then got very sick and needed 5 drugs to keep me alive. I was able to begin to appreciate western scientific medicine, and sometimes drugs are absolutely necessary.

Is most religious belief based on factual historical accounts? Probably not. Does it enrich peoples lifes? You bet! (as long as it doesn't create conflicts in their beliefs and values)

I have a lot of time for James Randi, I think his charismatic and entertaining, articulate and intelligent. But when he starts talking about homoepathy, other things and Tony Robbins, I see they're trying to feel certain just like other people. I do however really enjoy his work to debunk psychics and bring honesty to peoples lives in an area like that.

I have a lot of time for James Randi, I think his charismatic and entertaining, articulate and intelligent. But when he starts talking about homoepathy, other things and Tony Robbins, I see they're trying to feel certain just like other people. I do however really enjoy his work to debunk psychics and bring honesty to peoples lives in an area like that.

The problem with some kinds of psychological experiments is that it is very hard to design valid ones that isolate the necessary variables when you are talking about subjective experience such as beliefs etc. (How do you make sure 2 people have exactly the same set of beliefs?) It is easy to make a mistake in the methodology of the experiment itself. A classic example of this was the "Nim Chimpsky" and other talking apes in the 70s (via sign language). Remember that? Basically, the experimenters fooled themselves into believing the ape could speak because of the poor design. The ape was using learned signs and got very good at tricking the experimenter but was not really talking! They fell foul of confirmation bias (only recording evidence that supports the presupposition) because they wanted to believe so much.

However, with something physical and discrete like giving a pill, it is quite easy to isolate variables and design a good experiment. With

homeopathy

for instance you can simply switch the prescription before the patient receives it without the practitioners knowledge, hence making it double blind.

I think a more relevant question is. Why does it take so long for knowledge to proprogate around the world? It should be quick with a planet that has the internet.

Why can someone like me, or someone else trained in these skills get results in one session much of the time, yet there be an industry in which people can get no results, or sometimes negative results after years?

I'll speculate one possible answer. Human nature. Look at some of the things the world knows about that they don't.
Why do people seem to come into this world ego centric? Is it because we're locked into 1st position? Is the solution simply education, new conditioned mental patterns from youth, like a patterned use of 2nd position?

So is the problem we come genetically wired to look after our own needs and hence peace on earth is never possible?

A classic example of this was the "Nim Chimpsky" and other talking apes in the 70s (via sign language). Remember that? Basically, the experimenters fooled themselves into believing the ape could speak because of the poor design. The ape was using learned signs and got very good at tricking the experimenter but was not really talking!..

Good point, and one which camm out even more clearly in the Washoe experiment which started the trend.

One of the "trainers," who used American Sign Language on a daily basis because they were themselves deaf (or dumb? I don't have a textbook handy) revealed that they, and other experienced ASL trainers had been criticised for turning in so few positive reports - not none, but far few than the university people who had learned ASL for the purposes of being involved in the experiment.

Seems the anateurs sopotted far more "matches" than the professionals. Could this be one of the reasons why many self-styled skeptics so obviously know little or nothing about the thinks they are skeptical about?

Going back to the original article, Carroll obviously has no real idea what NLP is about and thinks it is just a variation on the likes of est and the Landmark Forum. He seems to know nothing about Bandler or Grinder other than what he has picked up off the Internet. He accepts uncritically a report on experiments that allegedly "disprove" NLP without having the faintest idea that many of the investigations were (a) carried out by students rather than experienced professional researchers, (b) that most of the experimenters had little or no idea what claims had actually been made by Bandler and/or Grinder, and (c) had absolutely no idea that a small number of experimenters had actually confirmed claims for certain NLP-related techniques.

In fact being extensively ignorant seems to be a useful characteristic to qualify someone as a skeptic in the first place.

Kerrching

Your 2 penny'th is up Mr Bradbury!

So long folks

Be well

Andy B.

In fact being extensively ignorant seems to be a useful characteristic to qualify someone as a skeptic in the first place.

Are you mistaking scepticism for cynicism?

I see scepticism is an attitude to do with being open minded, i.e. willing to "try on beliefs for size" and "drop them as easily" when they do not fit the facts.

Cynicism is more of an attidtude to do with a prejudging affairs based on ignorance.

In short, a sceptic is willing to be convinced if you have the evidence, a cynic is not.

In my late twenties, I realised that the things that would most hold me back and impede learning were the things I was not willing to question. These are the "invisible" strings that pull us as we are then not excercising choice anymore.

The usual problem is that the more we do based on a belief, the more emotional investment we have in maintaining it (the consistency principle). Supposing you have invested a lot of time and money, convinced your friends etc, we are emotionally invested and unwilling to back down. It took a lot for Karla McLaren to come to terms with this after being a new-age teacher and author for most of her adult life but I respect her for being willing to question that which she held most dear, part of her identity and had invested a great deal of her life in. That is some "letting go" if you ask me that few would willing to undertake..

How she came to terms with stuff..
Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures (Skeptical Inquirer May 2004)

What she's doing now..
Karla McLaren's 2008 Update

The kind of books she used to write..

Amazon.co.uk: karla mclaren books

g [Amazon UK | Amazon US]

If you guys thought the NLP article in Wikipedia was bad, I urge you to check out the new Knol utility by Google. Go to Knol: a unit of knowledge and search for NLP.

The article by Joe Greenfield is nothing but completely horrendous, he can't even get most of his notes and references correct.

Then again, he is (quoted): "...an expert myself, in cognitive psychology and applied psychology especially in work and business situations."