NLP Connections - the ultimate NLP resource on the internet - and the largest NLP forum!

Hi all, I am new here, and have just began to learn about NLP (from books at the moment, I haven't attended a course).

As a qualified psychologist, I am wondering about your opinions on the validity of NLP, and the evidence behind the methodology.

A quick Google search reveals many scathing commentators, denying any usefulness of NLP whatsoever.

But (or should that be 'and'? )

An academic search (PsychInfo database) leads to a small selection of scientific research - the general overview being (I haven't read any of them yet, in depth, so I cannot comment fully): that although generally dismissed, NLP does have some useful tenets, which can be scientifically tested and validated. (Although not very many rigorous experiments have taken place yet.) Obviously this means that some of the techniques do not work.

Does anyone have any links to academic journals which may be of interest to me regarding NLP?

And can anyone give me pointers on what has (in their opinion) been discredited within the field? From a personal or professional point of view, (either is fine, but please differentiate between the two when you reply).

I am interested in devising scientific experiments to test NLP theories in the future - do you think this is (a) a good idea; (b) not necessary (because personal experience validates the methods); or (c) wouldn't prove anything? (Could you also give me a reason why you chose that answer.)

I apologize for the last paragraph appearing to have come from a questionnaire - it was just simpler to write it that way.

I look forward to chatting with you all, and finding out more about NLP.

Maybelline

HI Maybelline

There has been some interesting discussion on this site recently about NLP as a 'pseudoscience' and the pros and cons of research in this area. I can't remember the thread titles at the moment but if you search for Rich Farnham using the find people tab at the top of the page you will be able to find links to the threads( Rich posted on several thread with this topic in mind hence this is a good route to find the material).

I'm from a psychiatry background and have a degree in psychology too so I'm well versed in 'evidence based practice' and a few years ago, I would have supported this stance firmly. However over the last few years I have felt a need to move away from the reductionist scientific approach of the 20th century to a more holistic approach that allows for more flexible responses to research questions.

One of the main shifts for me was noting that not all evidence based approaches work for everyone and an attendance at an NLP practitioner training accelerated my desire to find a more flexible way forward.

My personal take is that research methodology needs a paradigm shift to explore NLP more effectively and this needs to move away from the traditional randomised controlled trial that is seen as the holy grail of scientific research. I have much anecdotal practice based evidence of the effectiveness of NLP but I've no current desire to research this in any meaningful way.

by Manjir Samanta-Laughton is a good introduction to the type of paradigm shift I am referring to.

I hope you find this reply useful and I wish you well on your quest!

Chris

Thank you Chris, your reply was very helpful, and enlightening. I will check out the Rich Farnham threads later.

I am able to see (with the little knowledge of the subject that I possess) how NLP could be useful in certain situations, and with certain people. The problem why it falls down when scientifically tested is that (like most qualitiative experiments) it is difficult to decide what signifies a successful outcome, and to posit the real reasons for that outcome.

My other concern is that some NLP practitioners also perform other 'therapies' and 'woo' (to use a James Randi word) - such as reiki and psychic readings: 'disciplines' that have no evidence base at all. Every time I see someone listed online as an NLP and Reiki practitioner, or NLP and Reflexologist, I cringe. The connection with New Agey stuff, and post-modernist, anti-science thinking is one I dislike intensely.

I think that many NLP techniques could be appraised by scientific experimentation - which would result in some methods being discarded and some being proven useful - surely this is what the NLP community would ultimately like to see?

I would be interested to see NLP scientifically tested and validated, and I agree with you that a 'paradigm shift' may have to occur. But I am very aware that most 'pseudosciences' and alternative therapies use the same logic to explain why their therapy cannot be found to work when tested, and wonder if that is the case with NLP.

Hohum, I will carry on learning about the subject, it is fascinating anyway!

Thanks for your help!

Maybelline,

I studied Psychology for 3 years at Uni and then a few years later I took 2 years of teacher training. With my hand on my heart I can confidently say I learnt more about how to help (in numerous ways) people on my 7 days NLP practitioner course.

I am not interested in whether it is scientific or not, to me that will not confirm or undo any experience I have had first hand of NLP. Sure I do see the comparison between NLP and happy clappy spritual healing and I would equally feel happy for everyone that has been healed in that way. 'Science' cannot explain so much stuff and whether scientific experiments can explain in detail about how and why gravity holds me to the floor while I write this thread and I feel better the more I write more and more words. As I picture you reading the comments on this website and enjoying having your mind stimulated in many new ways, is it the feeling of helpfulness that makes me feel good or is it sharing experiences and knowledge that makes me feel better? Could a scientific experiment tell me the answer to those questions? No of course not, could a science test, experiment or research prepare me for a high pressure interview I have lined up for next month? If 'Science' cannot explain so much stuff and whether scientific experiments can explain in detail about how and why gravity holds me to the floor while I write this thread and I feel better the more I write more and more words then does that mean I am not sat here and having an enjoyable time?

People who have a passion for science will approach most things with a scientific approach, forums for people that enjoy talking about conspiricy theories will find conspiricies wherever they look.

Whether you can scientifically test NLP is a mine field where I would not know where to start. My initial thoughts are that NLP embraces an idea that making mistakes is fine and all part of learning. If I lined up 10 people with similar looking illnesses and a proportion of those get better from receiving identical help then that simply means (to me) that those who remain un-healed simply require different treatment. It does not mean that those who get better from the treatment have been indicted into a cult and are now lying about how much NLP helped tham. I understand that that approach is self fulfilling so NLP cannot be wrong (kind cult like I know!) but a person who visits their doctor and gets perscribed prozac and then after a few months their medication is changed to Zoloft, well, that is an identical process. It does not mean Prozac does not work, it simply means it was either miss-diagnosed or simply not the right answer for that individual.

My personal opinion is that a majority of the chemical changes enforced by the taking of drugs can be produced naturally within the body, with the right stimulus anything can happen. Think about the Baby P story that is in the press at the moment, now shake that state of mind away and think about your wedding day or a great holiday you had recently. Well, we just changed all kinds of chemicals in your head without any foreign chemicals being introduced. For me, NLP is a set of templates that work along these lines, applying the right template to each scenario and then working the client through the template is down to the skill of the therapist. What would worry me about scientific testing is that the needs of the patient and the skill of the therapist or practitioner is key to everything, without that nothing will work.

We have had talking therapies perscibed on the NHS for years now, what is the scientific explanation of how they work? They clearly do work (for some people) but so what if the results cannot be reproduced or measured? The model is not good enough to test what is needed to be measured.

I have a pencil and pad of paper in front of me just like JK Rowling once had, I use the pencil to write on the pad but so far no best selling book has appeared.

Science cannot measure love, compassion, empathy, insecurity, security, trust, authority or passion. Most people I have worked with using NLP tools have problems focussed around these issues, if the test is 'failed' then there is every chance the testing procedures are not up to standard to measure what is needed. In that case do we listen to the results of the inadequate testing or continue to be happy and stick with what you know works.

I hope you are sat in your chair infront of your PC monitor feeling empowered to ask more questions. You are an amazing person who can out think any computer or manmade machine, could you measure your feelings of happiness, interest or passion using a 'scientific test'? If not, what way would you experience, test and then improve these emotions and feelings?

What if 40 years ago someone asked themselves the same question and after 40 years of research and development we had a set of methods on how to achieve success in changing these feelings and emotions more often than not. Well, that (to me) is what NLP is all about.

Thanks

Matt

I come from a science background myself and greatly respect the honourable intention of scientifically testing things.

I think the difficulty in testing NLP is that NLP deals with changes in subjective experience and the kinds of shifts elicited by NLP don't work by a script, which is probably what's necessary to make repeatable tests. (Successful use involves a constant feedback loop.)

Let's say you wanted to scientifically test whether the influential communication patterns of the Milton Model work. First, think of all the variables: the choice of patterns available; the skill of the user; the patterns of the responder, etc. Second, notice the inherent generalisation in this type of question. Third, to test it scientifically you'd probably have to give everybody involved in the trial the same script, but that contradicts how you're supposed to use the model.

The conclusion you'd probably come to is: "The influential communication patterns of the Milton Model work some times, depending on the skill of the user and the patterns of the responder".

Which in turn becomes: "The more skills you have, especially about callibrating the patterns of the responder, the more it works."

Which is what NLP claims in the first place.

At the end of the day, those of us who use NLP have primary experience for when things work and don't work and in a way, that makes academic studies moot. (If a client walks in to my office 'with arachnophobia' and leaves without, do I care what a scientific study says about the method I used? Maybe it is just placebo effect. Do I care if it works?)

There are probably things in NLP you can objectively test, however I'm being 'big chunk' about NLP here. As a whole methodology, I think it's inherently slippery to prove or disprove by objective means simply because it's about shifts in subjective phenomena such as feelings and beliefs.

Slippery doesn't mean impossible, by the way.

Cheers

Chris,
I think the main thread you referred me to was

http://www.nlpconnections.com/talk-a...ictionary.html

11 pages long!
I have bookmarked it for future reading, as it contains (and I only read page 1) several interesting links to other sites.

I have to say that I am impressed with the depth of knowledge of psychology that has been shown by several posters on this forum. Not much evidence of pseudoscience here, and plenty of open minded and analytical thinking going on! I think I'm going to enjoy being a part of this forum, and learning all about NLP.

Thanks to all of you for your detailed responses.