Changes

Line 44: Line 44:     
== Is NLP a science?==
 
== Is NLP a science?==
 +
 +
NLP has many of the characteristics of [[Pseudoscience | pseudoscience]].  The notions of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation' are central to the program of science. But NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, and it has little if any predictive power. NLP practice is divorced from the practice of empirical verification, its theorising is not substantiated with reference to empirical evidence, and it does not exploit the body of knowledge of established disciplines.
 +
 +
Another characteristic of pseudoscience is that its research program is degenerating. A research program is deemed 'progressive' if it at least sometimes produces new predictions that are confirmed, and 'degenerating' if it fails to lead to new and confirmed predictions. In a progressive research program theoretical predictions successfully anticipate new data. In a degenerating research program the data precedes the theory, there is data "in search of a theory", and post hoc explanations abound. He cites the example of the addition of the notion of meta-programs to NLP, specifically to 'cognitive strategies'. When it was discovered that individuals with identical strategies presented fundamental differences the notion of meta-programs was postulated to prevent the falsification of the 'cognitive stragetgies' theory.
 +
 +
NLP is also 'personalised' by its assocation with Richard Bandler and John Grinder and a handful of other individuals, and by its fanatical and cult-like following - another characteristic that positions it as pseudoscience, New Age and cult-like, and which is also to be found in Scientology, Silva Mind Control, est and other psycho-cults.
 +
 +
Its theoretical basis is actively denied to exist by many proponents. However, its originators, particularly Bandler and Grinder, do pretend that it is scientific. Why do Bandler and Grindertalk about neurology. Why do they present their own theories regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, emotion, consciousness, neurology, motivation, language and perception, that are largely inconsistent with the findings of scientific disciplines that cover these domains? If Bandler and Grinder are positing theories in an area that is the province of science then they are preseneting NLP as something scientific. There is an "NLP theory of schizophrenia". NLP is therefore competing with scientifically based fields (neuropsychiatry, neuropharmacology, genetics, psychiatry) in providing understanding and treatment of schizophrenia. Mental illness treatment is the province of science. Hence NLP is presenting itself as a scientific field.
 +
 +
Some proponents argue that NLP is more like mysticism or religion.  However, unlike religion, NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its domain is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.
    
== NLP training ==
 
== NLP training ==
Line 59: Line 69:  
The Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority, [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Michael Heap | Dr Michael Heap]], looked at 70 papers on NLP, to examine its theoretical underpinning - Primary Representational System (PRS). This is the claim that we think in a specific mode: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory or gustatory (first three being the most common). Thus NLP trainers would now diagnose me as olfactory, as keywords (predicates) are central to the theory, along with eye movements. The claim is that rapport can be enhanced using these techniques, therefore fooling people into doing what you want; working harder, buying your product etc.
 
The Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority, [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Michael Heap | Dr Michael Heap]], looked at 70 papers on NLP, to examine its theoretical underpinning - Primary Representational System (PRS). This is the claim that we think in a specific mode: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory or gustatory (first three being the most common). Thus NLP trainers would now diagnose me as olfactory, as keywords (predicates) are central to the theory, along with eye movements. The claim is that rapport can be enhanced using these techniques, therefore fooling people into doing what you want; working harder, buying your product etc.
   −
Heap looked at the scientific literature and found that PRS is not serious science. He found that 'keywords' are not indicators in the way NLP practioners claim and ‘eye movement’ theories are, in particular, widely rejected.  On ‘establishing rapport’, again Heap found that there was no scientfic evidence for the claim that these techniques improve rapport. In a famous study, Cody found that NLP therapists, using language matching, were actually rated as untrustworthy and ineffective. Heap concludes that NLP is “found to be lacking” and that “there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements”.
+
Heap looked at the scientific literature and found that PRS is not serious science. He found that 'keywords' are not indicators in the way NLP practitioners claim and ‘eye movement’ theories are, in particular, widely rejected.  On ‘establishing rapport’, again Heap found that there was no scientific evidence for the claim that these techniques improve rapport. In a famous study, Cody found that NLP therapists, using language matching, were actually rated as untrustworthy and ineffective. Heap concludes that NLP is “found to be lacking” and that “there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements”.
    
David Platt, drawing from the German NLP research website http://www.nlp.de found that  
 
David Platt, drawing from the German NLP research website http://www.nlp.de found that  
Line 71: Line 81:  
Serious linguists will have nothing to do with the theory as its linguistic components were debunked long ago. Corballis says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".  
 
Serious linguists will have nothing to do with the theory as its linguistic components were debunked long ago. Corballis says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".  
   −
Beyerstein accuses NLP of being a total con, new-age fakery to be classed alongside scientology and astrology and many experts in management science are uncomfortable with its being mentioned alongside management theory.  Sanghera, in the FT, described NLP as ‘pop-psychology’, ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘banal’. It has been called training’s ‘astrology’.  
+
Beyerstein accuses NLP of being a total con, new-age fakery to be classed alongside scientology and [[astrology]] and many experts in management science are uncomfortable with its being mentioned alongside management theory.  Sanghera, in the FT, described NLP as ‘pop-psychology’, ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘banal’. It has been called training’s ‘astrology’.  
      Line 128: Line 138:  
* http://www.nlpconnections.com/members/fainites.html
 
* http://www.nlpconnections.com/members/fainites.html
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fainites
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fainites
 +
 +
 +
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whas User Whas] is (according to his user page) a second year Graduate Student in a Masters in counseling psychology program in Austin, TX, working toward his counseling licensure. He is a certified trainer of NLP and has about 400 hours of training in its techniques and principles, as well as many hundreds of hours of experience working with clients in a coaching setting.
    
== References ==
 
== References ==
Line 133: Line 146:  
* Donald Clarke "NLP – training’s shameful, fraudulent cult " [http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html Archived here]
 
* Donald Clarke "NLP – training’s shameful, fraudulent cult " [http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html Archived here]
 
* [http://drgeo.blogspot.com/2008/07/doctor-writes-about-nlp_22.html Dr George] - on whose precis this article is largely based - thanks!
 
* [http://drgeo.blogspot.com/2008/07/doctor-writes-about-nlp_22.html Dr George] - on whose precis this article is largely based - thanks!
 +
* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/NLP and science (Wikipedia)|NLP and science (Wikipedia)]]
 +
* [http://gjarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING: CARGO CULT PSYCHOLOGY?]
 +
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=5-Plk1pAzekC&pg=PA198&dq=neurolinguistic+discredited&ei=LiN5So3QMpXszATOtfXBDA#v=onepage&q=neurolinguistic%20discredited&f=false Top 10 discredited health treatments]
3,209

edits