Unshakable NLP and Science Thinkers

Hi all

This thread is about building unshakable belief and a more flexible map of NLP in a real world context.

The basic questions are:

How to build an unshakable belief in NLP in the face of valid skeptical views?

Sub-questions include:

How to connect with skeptical thinkers?

How to avoid pseudoscientific thinking and communication?

How to build a more flexible map to deal adaptively whilst building stronger NLP ability?


There is quite a background to my questions, including some of the responses I have had here concerning universities and skeptics articles etc. My own experience of this was at Surrey University UK, where there is a minor interest in NLP by a couple of academics. There is general and overall skepticism though, with quite a lot of adherence to the view that NLP is scientifically unsupported, pseudoscientific, and discredited.
I knew about NLP before university, and found it to be helpful. But when talking with academics at Guildford, I found myself unable to satisfy some of their questions about NLP. I was told to look at the research and I found that the views are valid and logical (that NLP failed the controlled studies, is pseudoscientific in concept etc). Of course this is a major blow and one I am sure that has led to many people moving on from NLP.

I continued my discussions with various academics in the psychology and business related departments and found myself reacting with more pseudoscientific argument. Clearly this is a problem. I admit to it here, and I see it in the writing of other NLPers here.

Here are my solutions, and I would like to hear feedback and further solutions from others:

I found submodalities worked well for helping keep me cool under fire. I was able to imagine the lecture theatre full of neuroscientists and was able to minimize the image with quite successful change in perception. It was certainly better than having to deal with the very large image of a body of scientists looking at me with dismissive smirks on their faces. Anyway, it allowed me to communicate without overreacting and with a bit of thought I was able to communicate with them without resorting to pseudoscientific argument.

I also modeled skeptical thinkers. Of course this is best done at a university or place where they are of a high quality. It was interesting looking at their point of view. Their priorities are more towards logical argument or logical persuasion. They respond to logical stepwise thinking. They respond badly to story, anecdote, metaphor, emotive dismissal and so on.

As soon as you start talking to them about exemplars (Milton Erickson, Satir, Einstein etc) they become highly suspicious and fail to see the connection. If you talk about perspective, point of view, belief, and paradigms, they start to open up.

These were the main NLP oriented methods I used to keep me congruent and flexible. Also, I was able to maintain respect because I could talk to skeptical thinkers without getting overbalanced by their rather harsh sounding labels and attributions. I found it perfectly reasonable to accept their conclusions about NLP being pseudoscience, and at the same time I could continue with NLP.

So firstly, any similar experiences with keeping flexible and connected?

Any other suggestions for belief maintenance techniques?

Any other suggestions for avoiding the pseudoscientific communication habit?

Best
Rich

One way to overcome the claims of "pseudoscience" lodged against NLP would be to test NLP methods scientifically.

Just because something is unproven, doesn't mean it isn't true! It means it hasn't been proven, and this case, hasn't been adequately tested. To claim that something untested is "pseudoscience" would eliminate all possible advancement in science.

It is often the case that a large number of studies are done on a new method from different angles before something new is shown to be effective. Many studies end up getting thrown out due to experimental bias, poor design, silly conclusions, or incorrect conclusions from the data. Science progresses slowly and carefully, which is why we can trust it, but therefore tends to be behind the cutting edge.

The form of skepticism that labels things as "pseudoscience" seems to me to be another form of dogmatism, lacking the spirit of scientific curiosity needed to make real advances in human understanding.

I don't recommend trying to convert the closed-minded. I suggest appealing to open-minded, yet hard-nosed psychological researchers, and getting NLP the testing it deserves.

It seems to me that at the root of this discussion there is a confusion between technology and science. Technology is often based in scientific research - AND if you examine history a little, you discover that more often than not technology has preceded science.

Technology is utilizing resources and achieving outcomes. Science concerns a methodology for measurement and experiment.

Technology that utilized electricity preceded any understanding of electricity. Edison's invention of the light bulb was technological, not scientific. He used a method of trial and error, not scientific method. Einstein's thought experiments and physics revelations were mathematical and imaginative. They were not science. Experiments were conceived many years later to test some of his theories and THAT was science. Some proved right, some not so right - but in the meantime, technologies were created based on his math, including photovoltaic cells and atom bombs.

Technology and science are often good partners, but their union is not necessary. Does evidence support forks and knives being more efficient than chopsticks? Do you check the latest findings about the nature of time and relativity before you look at your clock? No one wants to read double blind studies confirming the nature of electricity before they turn on their computer.

NLP is a technology. If someone applies it and it works, they probably aren't going to go looking for clinical studies. They'll use it again. Among my students and colleagues here, I have doctors, psychiatrists, physicists, and biologists. I've never heard the word "pseudoscience" used by these people to describe NLP. We do often talk about "technology" though.

Now, with that said... if you want to find scientific confirmation of NLP principles you'll do well to look at recent findings in neuroscience. They don't say "NLP" on them, but they come to the same conclusions as the observations made by Bandler and Grinder and others. For instance, check out the findings on "mirror neurons." Mirror neurons are the current superstar concept of neuroscience, a revelation that the brain makes neurological maps and models that mirror the behavior of others. The researchers into mirror neurons have concluded, among much else, that humans use mirroring and matching behaviors in every sense to develop rapport, experience empathy and to learn language (and other) skills from each other. The findings about mirror neurons also suggest that we can change our internal state by observing or imagining dissociated self-images.

That's just a sample. Plenty more coming from the world of neuroscience these days. These people aren't studying NLP, they are studying human neurology and coming out with theories that fit amazingly well with the observed evidence of NLP. And that's one very important way that science works.

OK Duff, but I think you seem to be resisting the basic premise of my thread: That its a valid view that NLP is pseudoscientific.

Appealing to the open minded is fine. Its easy. But doing it in a way that avoids pseudoscientific argument seems to be another matter entirely. Your post supports my point, and there will always be skeptics listening in chuckling away at logical fallacies etc.

Lets just assume for now that it is a valid view that NLP is psuedoscientific. I am talking about making the best of a tricky situation without causing further trouble (talking pseudoscientifically). Asking the scientific community to re-run the test is a pretty tall order. Lets just accept the fact that NLP is considered by reasonable people to be pseudoscientific e.g.

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And despite those views, still do NLP without digging deeper into pseudoscientific communication.

Rich

Hi Philip

Again, you do seem to be resisting the premise of the thread. There is some validity to the technology-science dichotomy, but they are certainly not altogether separate. The skepticism view would not be in agreement at all.

You would need to go further than technology to explain NLP's process. Again, a perspective shift.

Rich

"The skepticism view would not be in agreement at all."

I disagree. I am extremely skeptical that your views represent those of anyone other than you. That's my skepticism at work, thank you very much. How about you explore a nice perspective shift yourself?

And again, the interesting research is in neuroscience and even genomics. Bring yourself up to speed in those fields and we'll talk some more, okay?

OK Duff, but I think you seem to be resisting the basic premise of my thread: That its a valid view that NLP is pseudoscientific.

Appealing to the open minded is fine. Its easy. But doing it in a way that avoids pseudoscientific argument seems to be another matter entirely. Your post supports my point, and there will always be skeptics listening in chuckling away at logical fallacies etc.

Rich

Rich,

I see no evidence that NLP is "pseudoscientific." I'm not even sure what that would mean. Do you mean to say that there is a specific double-blind study that tested the efficacy of one or more NLP processes that did not prove better than placebo? If so, I'd be curious to read more about it.

What specific logical fallacies or "pseudoscientific" arguments are given for NLP? I haven't found any fallacies, and I am aware of the categories of logical fallacies, and consider myself well-versed in Symbolic Logic, but it's quite possible that I've missed something. Certainly in any field people will say things like "Richard Bandler said that this process works" which is a logical fallacy (argument from authority), but that's not why I use NLP, and it is quite useful to question such arguments so that we test these things and think for ourselves.

However, I don't argue that NLP is "scientific" in a double-blind tested sense, because the processes of NLP have not been rigorously tested.

I agree with Phil--NLP is technology, not science. Although I think some aspects of NLP could also be tested scientifically, and that this would be valuable both for the advancement of the field, and also for selling the techniques to the scientifically-minded.

Hi again Duff

Here is a review of the research

Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counselling Psychology, 34, 103-107.

Devilly GJ (2005) "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39:437–45(9)

Your claim is that it hasn't been adequately tested. Thats a pseudoscientific argument and the logical fallacy of shifting burden of proof, according to the scientific skepticism view. As an NLP practitioner you are under the burden of proof, not the scientists.

I think to be constructive here, you really have to accept the premise of the thread. If only hypothetically.

The goal is to find ways of connecting with skeptics, not making them incontinent with mirth. And of course dealign elegantly with the inevitable blows to belief is another key goal. I found manipulating submodalities was useful for keeping my head on my shoulders. Any other suggestions?


Rich

I think to be constructive here, you really have to accept the premise of the thread. If only hypothetically.

The goal is to find ways of connecting with skeptics, not making them incontinent with mirth. And of course dealign elegantly with the inevitable blows to belief is another key goal. I found manipulating submodalities was useful for keeping my head on my shoulders. Any other suggestions?


Rich

Well Rich how do you connect with people?

and what have rapport, calibrating, shifting perceptual positions, anchoring,... to do with that?

Have fun

Bart

I am having fun

Rapport is important I believe. Its so easy to break when talking to profs and other varieties of egghead. I do feel the channel for rapport is more verbal in those cases.

Though, I guess dressing up in shabby tweedy patched clothes and shiny trousers might also do the trick to some extent.

The perceptual positions thing has generally struck me as something on the way to being pretty useful with this particular issue.

Any specific ideas?

Rich

Rich, let's turn the tables

Let's look at the pseudoscientificity of the so-called scientific skepticism.

When has it ever been proved to be an effective thinking style? Peer review studies only, please.

When has it ever been proved to be a method actually following the scientific method? The proof so far is that it is a cult-type organization, refusing all and any data that go against it's point of view. They even go so far as to falsify research in order to get the results they want -and this has been confirmed.

So, would you accept it as a valid point of view, that scientific skepticism is in itself pseudoscience and a cult? Remember, the burden of proof is on you.

And I do expect an answer to the issue here - is scientific skepticism a pseudoscientific cult?

I think part of the problem with statements like 'NLP is pseudoscience' is scope. And it can be worth making people aware of that

Let's remember, for a moment, that NLP doesn't actually exist as a thing. It represents a set of skills and models.

Saying 'NLP is pseudoscientific' is a generalisation equal to 'all the skills and models represented by NLP are pseudoscientific'.

Now, have we decided what is the specific set of skills and models represented by NLP? (Bearing in mind that many different developers have been delineating skills and creating models.)

Or, is it not the skills and models that are under question but the claims of what's possible? Because that, again, is a different scope.

Now, I'm not raising that to be slippery. I think these are genuine questions. What, specifically, has been demonstrated?Has it really demonstrated that? Does it justify the generalisation that 'NLP is pseudoscientific'? Does that justify the equivalence that it's not worth learning?

If, say, the NLP allergy technique didn't 'work (all the time), does that mean it's not worth learning how to use tag questions?

Anyway, back to the original question. I have faced this challenge recently. A guy backed out of an NLP training because he'd read Wikipedia. (It wasn't a full prac training, it was just some skills for office communication and office resourcefulness.)

I paced that NLP is, indeed, somewhat controversial in terms of it's 'miracle cure' claims and that not everyone agrees with all it's models. I also paced that, yes, there are people out there who think NLP is specifically a 'power therapy' and others who portray it as 'new age'. I can't be responsible for how they want to 'map' it to others. I simply explained that wasn't 'my map'. I also brought in the 'scope' thing above.

Having paced and opened the guy up to it not being as 'black and white' as what Wikipedia said, I then started to give my map. Now, this was a guy who liked earthy, 'real to me', 'what can I really do with it' explanations. So I explained: it's a set of skills and models that come from modelling successful people. So, it takes people who are very good at negotiating and builds a model of what they do so we can teach other people to negotiate well. And I listed a few other examples like that, which I knew was relevant to him.

I didn't try to 'prove' or 'counter prove' anything. I simply opened up that it's not so black and white and shifted the discussion to what the training would really do for him that would be useful.

I'm really not that interested in trying to prove or counter prove claims about 'scientific' and 'pseudoscientific', I'm really just interested in people learning skills that will really be useful to them. And that's how I framed it.

Cheers

Hi all

This thread is about building unshakable belief and a more flexible map of NLP in a real world context.

Personally I like to have my beliefs around NLP given a good shake on a regular basis. IT IS what gives me a flexible map of NLP in a real world context...

And as for dealing with skeptics. Well I usually tell my classes and coaching clients that I aim to be the biggest skeptic in the room. I love skeptics and invite them to be as skeptical as possible for as long as they can despite the evidence of their experience - it's a great learning state... I say, "don't believe a word I tell you, just keep open to the possibility and find out for yourself through experience". If they don't want to keep open to learning through experience then move right along because that's what I'm asking them to do as it is the most effective way to learn.

Cheers

John

I am having fun

Rapport is important I believe. Its so easy to break when talking to profs and other varieties of egghead. I do feel the channel for rapport is more verbal in those cases.

Though, I guess dressing up in shabby tweedy patched clothes and shiny trousers might also do the trick to some extent.

The perceptual positions thing has generally struck me as something on the way to being pretty useful with this particular issue.

Any specific ideas?

Rich

well rapport has nothing to do with your clothing or the verbal channel..

You can easily agree to disagree.. staying in rapport..

now here's a thing..

it's not about the content.. although you might think that it is..

this has nothing to do with skeptics, science-techniques-pseudoscience.. unshakable NLP

This is is all about you.. and how you relate to others ..


Have fun

Bart

Hi again Duff

Here is a review of the research

Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counselling Psychology, 34, 103-107.

Devilly GJ (2005) "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39:437–45(9)

Your claim is that it hasn't been adequately tested. Thats a pseudoscientific argument and the logical fallacy of shifting burden of proof, according to the scientific skepticism view. As an NLP practitioner you are under the burden of proof, not the scientists.

I think to be constructive here, you really have to accept the premise of the thread. If only hypothetically.

The goal is to find ways of connecting with skeptics, not making them incontinent with mirth. And of course dealign elegantly with the inevitable blows to belief is another key goal. I found manipulating submodalities was useful for keeping my head on my shoulders. Any other suggestions?


Rich

Thanks for the two studies. I'll check those out. I thought maybe there were more, given that there are 195 or so studies in favor of NLP here:
The Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) Research Centre: Linking NLP to Academic Research
I disagree that claiming "NLP hasn't been adequately tested" is equivalent to "shifting the burden of proof." I'm not attempting to prove anything! I'm saying that the processes of NLP seems to me to work, but hasn't been through nearly enough double-blind studies to make any strong, scientific conclusions.

I also disagree that science "proves" anything. Science is built on inductive logic, and there are serious philosophical problems with induction. Induction is basically a big IF --> THEN statement: IF all these studies are true THEN we can conclude X.

The leading edge of science no longer talks of Truth, but of models--at least ever since 1920 or so with Heisenberg, Einstein, and the like.

As far as connecting with skeptics, I'd recommend what I recommended before: avoid them, or engage them at their model of the world by talking about the need for testing things.

Hi Artur

I am not trying to prove anything. Only looking for solutions – as per this discussion thread’s title. Proof of the efficacy of scientific skepticism? I don’t know of any studies, but there are plenty of studies on how to overcome confirmation bias using questioning techniques and the understanding of independent evidence.

Sure, some people (who have very broad notion of cults) might call the science community a cult, and others with a more delineated definition may class NLP as a cult. It all depends upon what you call cult thinking. Skeptics would call NLP a cult because of in-group thinking, the adherence to pseudoscientific thinking, the vague treatment of reality, the dismissal of independent evidence and so on. They would call NLP pseudoscientific because it tends to be dressed up in scientific sounding jargon and science terms that have not much to do with accepted science. Again, this doesn’t offer any real solution to the problem.

Hi Stephen
Yes on the face of it, NLP as if it is just a set of techniques seems to be both interesting and attractive. But it also smacks of the logical fallacies of moving the goalposts and incomplete sampling. It would seem more than a small discrepancy to have the statement that NLP teaches exquisite communication skills and patterns that allow you to influence elegantly, when in fact the results are negative. The Druckman 88 review of studies shows NLP is inappropriate and ineffective for the purpose of influencing people. Its also inconsistent to state that NLP shows the pattern and it is specific, identifiable and repeatable. NLP has not shown that according to the accepted process of evidence (science). Its also changeable to say that if that has not been proven, then we are just teaching a bunch of techniques. Some work sometimes, and some are accepted in general, and others are really well supported. Again, its incomplete sampling. That sort of changeable set of statements really will make a skeptic look at you with suspicion. It’s like you are claiming to have the reproducible patterns (which have already got a no-show in controlled studies, then you have techniques that don’t work all the time (i.e. techniques that would fail the research stream). I believe there are less evasive and more powerful ways of communicating to skeptics.

Hi John

Yes the try it yourself dictum is standard in NLP. Unfortunately it’s also standard in pseudoscience in general. Its ok to some level, but a skeptic would advise consumers to always check whether something has independent evidence of efficacy before buying in.


Hi Bart
Do you have any actual recommendations?


Hi Duff

Again, looking at 195 different studies (some of which don't even mention NLP) is prone to erroneous or biased sampling. The papers I recommended (1988 and 2005) show reviews of literature in toto.

Logically science only disconfirms something that can be disconfirmed. NLP offered (in the literature and on trainings) some pretty easy to test stuff on influence, modeling, change etc, and it was tested. It failed the test. NLP practitioners and authors then stated that you cannot test NLP in that way. Again, that’s a very changeable and pseudoscientific way of behaving. NLPers still offer no method for categorically rejecting NLP. So it’s categorically a pseudoscience in scientific skepticism terms.

Sure you would avoid skeptics, and that is one way to go. But any group that avoids the questioning of outsiders and especially the thinking of scientific skepticism, is generally considered to be a cult. Not that I find that much of a problem, but it may reduce the likelihood of productive communication with those of a scientific mind.

From my own experience though, I feel that something more towards looking at things from a perception and belief point of view may be more productive in terms of communication. And actually communicating without blurting out insecure and pseudoscientific statements can be improved using submodalities and the like. I think it may also help to model people who have been successful despite unscientific beliefs.

I’m sure some of you must have something else in the repertoire to suggest???

Rich

Oh, I just found this one:

Donald Clark Plan B: NLP – training’s shameful, fraudulent cult

There seems to be a lot of variety in both the NLP group and the questioning group.

What do you think is the most convincing argument/attitude from the NLP practitioner side? And which post do you feel is the most connected in terms of seeing the non-NLP point of view?

Rich

Hey Rich,

The claims of the link you presented do not apply to my position. I do not claim NLP is science. For the record, neither does Richard Bandler, or any trainers that I know of. I think that some of the claims of NLP could be verified with clinical trials. I have not yet reviewed the literature, but I also don't necessarily need scientific "proof" to confirm something for me, although it's definitely nice and useful to do so.

The article you linked to has many errors about the claims of NLP, and engages in many of the logical fallacies such as the ad hominem attack on Richard Bandler that begins the article.

Honestly, I'm not really up for the debate, but best of luck in finding what you are looking for.

Hi Duff

I think we got past that one a while back. NLP practitioners don't have to claim that NLP is science for it to be pseudoscience. It only has to APPEAR scientific and not really BE scientific for it to be pseudoscientific.

Yes the blog is not my first choice, but I was including it because of its variety for the sake of other reader's choice/prefs. I am looking at reducing the pseudoscientific nature of NLP argument, rather than criticising skeptics.

I'm not particularly interested in actually debating the pseudo nature of NLP now, or how pseudo, etc, just looking for suggestions for how to develop a useful attitude for avoiding the generation and propagation of pseudoscientific proclamations, and for connecting with people outside of the circle of NLP.

Rich

So, if the designation pseudoscience only matters to a subset of people who ascribe to a particular scientismist worldview, and their opinions frankly count for little in the results-based world that at least some NLPers work in, why should it matter that the former group get hot under the collar at the prospect of people behaving in a way they don't approve of?