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

Hi Frederic

I have to be really straight here. And trust me, it helps.

In the 80s, Sharpley's reviews of all the research showed that NLP shows no result overall. That was a major review of all relevant studies by someone who really knows the empirical domain.

Since then just about every empirically minded scientist who was interested has done their own research and concurred with Sharpley. The general view from the empiricists is that NLP is pseudoscientific, and there was a more recent paper by a professor called Devilly who actually used NLP as an archetypal pseudoscience in order to help explain the nature of pseudoscience.

Thats all fine by me!

I can accept that.

I do not have an empirical point of view. My view is that NLP is best described as an attitude, philosophy, or perhaps just a particular meta-perspective.

I don't believe it should be called a model at all, because psychology is full of models, and the first thing they try to do is test models. Calling NLP a model is misleading and ultimately unconvincing.

And I notice that some NLP websites have added their own versions of the research, and concluded that its kosher. Thats totally unconvincing of course as some NLP practitioners would do that wouldn't they!

At universities that have any sort of pedigree, they will tend to employ methods that have been empirically tested, from concept mapping, to rigorous metacognitive and constructivist educational methodologies.

NLP really doesn't fit in with those methods. They were tested and they suit the empirically minded and NLP fell the wrong side of the measure.

NLP is far too flexible for all that. NLP suits the cutting edge minded! Universities just don't cut it. Management training, self-development and so on are fine. But anything with measurement minded people hanging around will just make it hard work.

Despite the positive things that people here are saying about NLP and universities, the evidence really does show the opposite, and my own experience is that repute crashes, and people just snikker at the whole thing.

NLP is best achieved and nurtured in a conducive environment

Rich

You may like to read this article on methodology used in research into NLP.

Chris Collingwood

very interesting article Chris. Thanks for this. It is interesting to read the counterviewpoint and to recognize the flaws in the research on which arguments are built. As academics we should be open to debate on these issues. I can only reiterate that I have found NLP to work in all areas of academia and have not come across an instance where this was not the case. That is in my experience.

Perhaps part of the difficulty is the original argument that "it is taught in universities at a very basic level" is the root of the problem. Perhaps if it was taught properly and to a higher standard it would work.

I am interested on other views on this.

Wendy

The article is written by an NLP practitioner and shows a distinct bias.

He uses nonsequiturs such as "Given that even the research which had found effects supporting NLP concepts suffered from various methodological confounds, it is not easy to make any generalisations about the validity or use of past research into NLP."

Actually Einspruch and Forman was a minor paper. Sharpley responded to it, and E n F had no reply. In empirical terms there is just no answer to the fact that NLP failed the measure. The papers that came after Sharpley 97 were even more critical. Because of sites like yours, empirical researchers such as Devilly (2006) are holding NLP up as an archetypal pseudoscience, and the greatest source of erroneous concepts in the field.

If you continue to present such critically erroneous nonsense on your site, you will get into even deeper shit as a pseudoscientist.

Just don't go there

Use a strategy that acknowledges, accepts, and presents another perspective entirely.

NLP should not be dragged through the crap like you are doing presently

Rich

Rich,

This is a topic that I have wrestled with in the past so would like to ask you some more questions in order to help me understand where you are coming from on this.

You are making some huge generalisations and sweeping statements about theories that you have which despite others offering counter examples, you seem locked in on what you believed to be reality before we enterred this discussion and you seem to have simply dismissed all the counter evidence provided in statement on this thread. That is no problem at all but it does make me want to know more of your experience.

I'll pick up on some specifics a little later, first of all I want to share my belief and experience that it is not up to indivudual universities to road test theories and then only teach about those which they believe to hold up. A 'good' lecturer puts their own beliefs to one side and puts the needs of the students as their priority. Our students do not study for a 'Farnham, Sims an Adams or a Jones' but for externally vetted awards that require students to demonstrate knowledge of predefined criteria, NLP may or may not be in that criteria. If it is then it should be displayed to students without bias. I know of lecturers who do not do that and I use that information to reinforce my belief that they are infact bad people to have nurturing young minds. However, you are not answerable for that and that is not the discussion at hand. For me, the debate you have made at the top of this thread answers your own concerns. NLP is an attitude (to some people) and it is an model (to some people) and to each and every person who knows a little NLP it is something else. On other threads on this forum I have commented that if something falls down under testing then the chances are the testing procedures or their operators are inadequate.

Another general point I'd like to make, I often get people telling me their problems and quite often stangers will make friends with me quite quickly. Often I do secretly facilitate this and make myself open to such interactions, I use the same skills to break connections with people also. I use some fundamental NLP skills and it works very well. In the same scenario, if it comes up that I have an interest in NLP more often than not people will either keep their distance from me or bug me for the whole night to 'fix' them there and then. The point I am trying to make is that NLP is an attitude that will make you very good at what you do, it will give you an edge over the academics you describe, even if that means you model their behaviour and yourself learns to act like a pompus academic when it suits you and you can step into the more informed person when it suits you. Any knowledge is good knowledge and in an environment where the culture is so anti-NLP as you describe it then that puts you in a situation where you have a unique advantage.

I am still unknowing as to whether you are struggling to.

1 Gain any benefit or recognition for your own NLP use,
2 Convincing other to enhance themselves using NLP skills,
3 Getting a positive explanation of NLP delivered to students from other lecturers.

Each carries their own problems and unique directions in how to take this forward.

I have just finished listening to a series of Podcasts made by Clive Woodward where he explains his management strategies in which he used when he worked at a multinational company Xerox, his own small business and of course with the world cup winning England Rugby team. His strategies and explanations are 100% compatibale to the beliefs and attitude that NLP brings yet he does not mention NLP once. A sceptic could shoot down his beliefs and claim their own are correct, or I could apply the same model to the same set of players and get very different results. The point I am trying to make is that you can be an excellent person who reaps the benefit of NLP knowledge and skills to use this knowledge without ever mentioning NLP. Not because you are hiding it away but just because the you that you are being works better when people take you at face value. My father believes NLP is total bollox and he will argue black is white in order to maintain his beliefs but I get great satisfaction when he says that I have never looked happier or that he thinks my career is going well. If I told him what helps me make the right decisions of what helps me maintain my happiness then again he would have a conflict of beliefs which, like your colleagues, is his problem.

I first found about about NLP whilst working in HE. I was a Lecturer at a dire College and on a staff development day I followed the other sheep from one "lecture" (I dont know why they were lecturing us, we had done nothing wrong) to another and listed to boring tossers drone on about how to make lessons exciting and improve retetention figures, yes, the irony because all we wanted to do was leave. This day dragged on until we had a session on mentoring and conducting session observations. We walked into the room of a smiling, happy and confident lecturer who displayed so many positive elements that she could almost be called charismatic! We sat there as we were entertained, stimulated without our knowledge, we were educated. I, along with the whole of my group we chirping away brimming with positive comments about how the session would impact on our jobs when I broke from my group and went to talk to the lady. We got talking and only then did she mention NLP and gave me a few websites to look up. Rather than be told NLP is great, it can do x and y, I witnessed it in action by a skilled practitoner and wanted to know more.

Dont push them to go in your direction, lead them.

Any help?

Thanks

Matt

NLP works for me!

It does what its supposed to do. It makes you more flexible and adaptive when its adopted with NOW in mind.

NOW NLP is a pseudoscience. Its a new alternative religion. Its a failed and discredited intervention. If you like I can supply the research articles that found these results. I suspect you can sense it from general responses to NLP though.

Can you deal with that?

What is NLP for those NLP authors who constantly fail to deliver?

What can NLP be?

What is NLP for those it works for? What is NLP for those who find it consistantly delivers?

Rich

Sorry, I haven't read all the posts. I just wanted to pick up on the 'pseudoscience' claim.

Maybe this is just my map, but I've never thought of NLP claiming to be 'science'. For me, NLP simply claims that if you can find out how somebody does something, you can model it and build skills out of those models.

That, to me, is actually common sense - not science, pseudoscience or new age thinking.

I know NLP claims things about, for example, eye accessing cues, which is sometimes attacked as not scientific. And, as I posted in the Derren Brown thread, the obvious challenge to NLP-ers like ourselves is: are you falling for that old trap of 'finding what you're looking for'?

Eye accessing cues aside, however, and framed as a set of skills derived from modelling people, I don't think it falls into the 'science or pseudoscience?' argument.

Incidentally, that's what NLP is to me: a set of skills derived from modelling people. And a methodology for deriving even more skills. Not, in itself, a therapy. If you want to apply those skills to therapy, fine by you. If you want to apply them to coaching, fine by you. If you want to apply them to business influence, fine by you.

Now, what about these 'failed interventions'. One intervention in isolation 'might' very well fail. Despite his reputed 97% close ratio, Ben Feldman's sales techniques didn't work sometimes. (And they probably weren't 'science' either.) But given enough choices of interventions to use and a philosophy that 'if something doesn't work, do something else' you may well be successful in the end.

For me, an intervention doesn't have to be scientifically proven to work (all the time) to be worth having among our choices. The fact it works sometimes is enough to make it something knowing.

Thanks for a stimulating and thought provoking thread.

Cheers

You may be right Stephen

But technically NLP or NLP practitioners don't have to claim that it is a science for it to be a pseudoscience. It only has to appear to be scientific, use erroneous concepts, and have a particular setup to be technically a pseudoscience.

Many neuroscientists and neurolinguists feel that it is fake enough to call it pseudoscience, and I have to admit, they are technically correct.

But if you take the view that NLP is not a model, but an attitude, approach, perspective, then it moves away from the pseudoscience category.

Rich

Actually the article was written by Richard Thompson who by the way is not a NLP practitioner. Richard is unique position in that he holds a first in Cognitive Science and a post graduate qualification in NLP. In other words he has double description, Cog Sci and NLP. He is biased in two fields. For the record he has conducted research with Jay McClelland one of the main proponents of PPD models in cogitive psychology. They published a joint paper in 2007.

So stick that up your pipe and smoke it.

Chris Collingwood

Hi Chris

Your rather rude assertion fails to address the main problem and betrays your superficial approach.

For any research review to be even recognized as valid, it needs to be peer reviewed and published in a reasonable journal. Getting a graduate from any NLP course to write it is completely unconvincing.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is with the academic community. You may be able to pull the wool over the heads of the unsuspecting or the desperate, but any seasoned reader will just laugh you off as a pseudoscientist.

And as I said, NLP could do without all that crap. NLP does not need in any way to compete with empirically supported clinical psychology.

Stick with perspectives, philosophies, and approaches. That's what people need.

Rich

Dear Rich,

I suggest you bring yourself into the reality of the NOW.

That's what people truly engage in.

What you say they "NEED" is your personal and subjective (totally non-scientific) judgement.

Nothing wrong with opinion - misguided or not - but NLP Practice (and intergration with other teachings) categorically has no place for that in it's rich objectivity. NLP Pseudo-Practitioner Pretenders, it seems, have what they think is a congenital NEED to subjectively project their NEED onto others in the form of uninformed criticism. Don't you?

Try a Miracle, Rich..... merely a Change of Mind.

People NEED nothing. Neither do you..... if only you were "in the KNOW"..... in the Reality of that about which you postulate from a position of obvious Alienation.

Your call for Love is heard. Are you listening to, and HEARING the informed responses? These are at the heart of the Science of Symbolic Interactionism, where NLP and Learning joins to encourage harmonious and enriching University Level teaching-training.

Didn't you know that?

David S.

David

I've told you my reasons for why NLP at university is fraught with problems.

I have referred to the studies that show NLP has failed to provide what universities generally require for ethically supported interventions (scientific support).

I know that there is a large group of people here who will not like what I have stated, and will not like the evidence that has been around for decades already.

But there are people here who will accept the facts and move on. I'm not saying don't teach NLP at university. I'm just saying that it is treated as a pseudoscientific flakefest because the controled studies show that it failed the test, and the reviewers say the background concepts relating to the brain and linguistics are largely erroneous.

I accept that there is a large problem in that context. My solution is to apply NLP within environments that are more cutting edge and less anal, and to treat NLP as an approach rather than a model.

Its ironic that you would apply the love-in style of communication above. You do rather confirm that NLP tends to be fraught with flakyness.

If the scientific findings cause you some insecurity, I suggest you read them for yourself and accept the perspective that they come from. Then stand back and look at it from a broader view to see other perspectives in a broader context.

Rich

Rich, you have a very narrow view of university and 'research'. Most of the research that I am involved with is qualitative and subjective which is much more suited to exploring human experience. There is no tension between my colleagues who have a more quantative stance and we work well together and give a methodologically rich experience to students.

You sound like you are drawing on evidence from many years ago and not what is the contemporary position in universities. I have been involved in research panels at both regional and national level and my experience does not mirror what you describe.

The research I refer to is cumulative, and yes it is mostly empirical with some subjective report measures also. Some review material is as recent as 2006.

If you know the perspectives of qualitative research, you will know it is not absolutely subjective. There is rigour involved, and it can be triangulated with quantitative data also.

A qualitative researcher may state that such and such people reported that NLP made them better at influencing others. Quantitative research would examine the actual ability as measured by test scores. Cross referencing found a discrepancy.

NLP fell into that failure category and as the concepts of NLP have generally been considered to be erroneous or pseudoscientific in neuroscience and psychology terms, it tends to make matters even worse. Well supported concepts are important for university professors, and NLP's linguistic and neuroscience concepts tend to be quite different from that of modern linguistics and neuroscience.

However, when you take NLP out of situations where that sort of thinking and testing is common, then the environment for teaching, flexibility and improvement is better. NLP is better designed for the common average person, and for the cutting edge.

Rich

Rich,

At first you were the middleman in a debate where you were stuggling to implement NLP as a recognised skillset to your Uni and now you are acting like the very filter that you yourself were initially struggling with. In the post above you waffle on about the depth of the research and then start to comment with unqualified comments such as

"concepts of NLP have generally been considered "
"it tends to make matters even worse"

and then a whopper of a vague statement that really is full of holes you write

"NLP is better designed for the common average person, and for the cutting edge."

Well, I am neither of these and both of them at the same time, I suspect most people are, so what does that really say? Nothing!

Will you be convinced by opinion or do you only require evidence that stands up to scientific testing? or maybe even things that happen in the real world as opposed to a science lab? Which way do you want it?

I watched my friends 2 year old trying to force a star shaped piece of plastic through the round hole on one of his toys a few days ago. After pushing and pushing using the same technique, rather than trying anything new or changing his way of thinking he eventually slammed it down and blamed the toy for not cooperating with him.

Thanks

Matt

Someone asked about university level teaching of NLP

I am talking about the problems therein (which are not vague at all and have been documented in peer reviewed studies of and surrounding NLP).

I am suggesting solutions to the problem. My first solution is to not teach at university level at all. Its a pretty obvious solution. It requires a simple level of flexibility.

The other solution is not to call it a model or refer to its concepts in psychological terms. Psychologists test models. The tested NLP and found it failed the test. Neurologists, psycholinguists and psychologists criticised NLP at the same time because the concepts are in error in their understanding of modern neuroscience.

If you don't accept that those views are valid, and that problems exist, then you will not be able to do much about it.

Rich

Rich, in (proven 100%) Rhetoric,

Feedback

Before I mark your Sociology Year 9 (14-year-olds) half-hour descriptive dissertation/assignment and /or evaluate your ability to know and practice NLP (same-same); Could you please SCIENTIFICALLY define YOUR terminology and experimentally deducted proof?

”NLP at university is fraught ? with problems.

”I have referred? to the studies that show NLP has failed to provide what universities generally require? for ethically? Supported? Interventions?” (What does “scientific support” mean……..in anyone’s language?).

”I know (reframe objectively) that there is (are) a large group of people (%/Ratio as compared to what/who?when/in what comparable scientific situations?) here (where?) who will not like what I have stated, and will not like the evidence that has been around (where?) for decades already” (References?).

”But there are people here (who?when/inwhat comparable scientific situations?) who will accept the facts (which facts/whose) and move on” (to where/when/with what scientific certainty?).

Since almost every single response is suggesting something more intellectually “scientific” than simply subject-teaching NLP at university, how you define “pseudoscientific flakefest”, scientifically?

Show how the (now defunct) structural-functionalist/reductionist scientific method has proven that “controlled” (speling) studies are indicative of anyone’s view or evidence.

Could you expand on what “Reviewers say” about the background concepts relating to the brain and linguistics?

To which context do you refer, since everything you describe is without context, except your own anal context?

“My solution is to apply NLP within environments that are more cutting edge and less anal, and to treat NLP as an approach rather than a model.” Please give examples of these environments? Hairdressers? Sawmills? Supermarket Toilets?

I am gratified – and it is indeed ironic that you’ve been able to score one or two points in recognising that I ……….“would apply the love-in style of communication”. I mean, what else is there??

Could you please scientifically define and discuss “NLP tends to be fraught with flakyness”?

All scientific findings give me a rich vein of security, since they just don’t prove a single thing!!

”The research I refer to is cumulative, and yes it is mostly empirical with some subjective report measures also. Some review material is as recent as 2006.” Please define and discuss your “Scientific Method” here.

”If you know the perspectives of qualitative research, you will know “it is not absolutely subjective. There is rigour involved, and it can be triangulated with quantitative data also”.

Applied NLP wouldn’t consider going there, would it? How could it be as un-scientific as NLP a-la Rich-in-Rhetoric?

“A qualitative researcher (just one?) may (evidence?) state (did they or didn’t they? And where is the documented and verified evidence?) that such and such people (mmmmm!) reported (where?) that NLP made them better (scientific?) at influencing others”.

Do you actually “believe” (un-scientific) that NLP is about influencing people??

“Quantitative research would examine the actual ability as measured by test scores. Cross referencing found a discrepancy.” (Evidence, please)

NLP fell into that failure category (scientifically, what does this mean?) and as the concepts of NLP have generally been considered to be erroneous or pseudoscientific in neuroscience and psychology terms (Who generally and scientifically says so? – evidence), “it tends to make matters even worse.” (For whom? Which Scientists feel they’re worse off? What matters? Tends? Make? Isn’t “worse” a value judgement?

1. “Well supported concepts are important for university professors……”. Do you actually believe that University Professors (empirically proven or scientifically assessed and scrtinised) do ANY teaching?

2.“……..and NLP's linguistic and neuroscience concepts tend to be quite different from that of modern linguistics and neuroscience”.

Why have you connected these two un-connected sentences? Guesswork or Scienifically proven as having an interrelationship with evidence of congruence??

”However, when you (ME?) take NLP out of situations (Scientifically, physically, psychologically, or linguistically?) where that sort of thinking and testing is common (waw, you’re scientific monologue is really “rocket science” here!!), then the environment for teaching, flexibility and improvement is better (Value judgement or Science?).

……….and then a whopper of a vague statement that really is full of holes you write: “NLP is better designed for the common average person, and for the cutting edge.” (Define Terms and context, please).

As you prove without any need for scientific scrutiny – in anyone’s definition of “science” (Search for TRUTH?)……"concepts of NLP have generally been considered " ……and…..
…………………"it tends to make matters even worse"……….. Mind-blowing analysis and language!!

In true NLP congruence with fully “Associating” with your before–the-milk-break diary, I’m sure you’ll find the above response totally scientifically provable in it’s “mirrored” shambles of an academic feedback.

Therefore, you’re analysis is absolutely spot on (if totally unscientific): Discombobulation is the new “science of the world” You’ve proved it!! Well Done!! Grade A..

Now now, calm down in class! Less screaming and shouting please!

David, you demanding every specific detail is the same as the general abuse that the metamodel has been used for.

You are using it to beat people up by demanding anal clarity on each and every point that makes you feel bad. You are using NLP in a destructively cultlike way, using inspeak, pseudolinguistics and so on. You have turned it into a way of magnifying the downsides of NLP.

You are also being completely uncool. Thats going to look pretty bad in a seminar at university!

NLP is about developing a more flexible map, so you would do well to start that journey right now. You don't need the metamodel (which is built on erroneous and outdated linguistics anyway), you just need an open mind and an ability to see things from multiple perspectives.

Scientific support means that NLP was tested, and it failed. So anyone referring to the research reviews will have support for the view that NLP has failed.

You are making that a problem

You shouting and demanding will not make that problem go away. It only highlights the notion that NLP is a belief field and that some of its true believers are extremely messed up.

I have no problem with it being pseudoscientific, a failed intervention, a belief field, a cult or whatever people want to call it. Each of those elements has its advantages.

Just take that information and build a more flexible perspective.

Rich

Oh for Rich's degree (ha!) of certainty about what constitutes 'good' NLP, and what counts as inappropriate levels of questioning...the answer to which seems to be 'whatever makes Rich feel uncomfortable'. It all rather reminds me of the Discordian notion 'relax in the comfort of your own delusions'.

Me, I lack that kind of comforting certainty, instead noting that one person's (and face it, odds are that person will be a man) tolerance of questions another's incredulity at Meta Monstering. I note that the whole business seems to be rather fractal, that is one comes across the same pattern at every level and across contexts. And that rather than having certainty about what constitutes inappropriate questioning, I continue to have a curiosity which manifests itself as and when it will.

Hi Adrian

So what do you think are the main problems of NLP at university level? And do you have any suggestions?

Rich