Difference between revisions of "Directory:FT2/Neurolinguistic programming"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
A satisfactory definition of NLP is impossible, given that it is really a hotch–potch of theories, some of which are based on legitimate science, but which have no connection with NLP, but is otherwise a messy soup of new age thinking that mixes hypnosis, psychotherapy and unconscious thinking (and any old rubbish that comes their way) into a suitably palatable omelette for the gullible.  It is much favoured by trainers for its childish tricks for classroom courses.  Its founders are Gregory Bateson, a now forgotten new-age sociologist, and his student, Richard Bandler (later drug addict and arrested for First degree murder in 1988) and John Grinder. 
 +
 +
The purpose of NLP is clearer.  It is more like a brand that sells the promise of unlimited potential by access to subconscious engrams, and body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards”.  For example, it claims to ‘model’ the behavioural characteristics observed in top performers in their subject (typically top performers in businesses and corporations) on the assumption that copying these 'behaviours' will lead to success in business.  See e.g. here http://www.inspiritive.com.au/talent.htm. 
 +
 +
The word 'model' should not be confused with a scientific 'model'. A scientific model is a representation of the world which has explanatory power. It is not a mere list of conditions: a successful model must explain reality with the minimum number of assumptions (for example the geocentric model of Ptolemy contains many more assumptions than the heliocentric Copernican one, which rapidly superseded it). 
 +
 +
Techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing and "meta modeling" proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language.  It has been applied to a number of fields such as sales, psychotherapy, communication, education, coaching, sport, business management, interpersonal relationships, seduction, occult and spirituality.
 +
 +
The Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority, Dr 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”.
 +
 +
David Platt, drawing from the German NLP research website http://www.nlp.de found that
 +
 +
1. There was no bona fide evidence to support the use of representational systems and concluded that they did not appear to play any significant role in communication.
 +
 +
2. Use of predicates had little to no influence in building or enhancing rapport.
 +
 +
3. Eye-accessing cues appeared to have no significant positive or negative impact when utilised in personal interactions.
 +
 +
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’.
 +
 +
 +
Heap (1988, 1989), Krugman (1985), Corbalis (1999), Beyerstein (1990).
 +
 +
[Donald Clarke “NLP – training’s shameful, fraudulent cult”]
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
== FT2 and Neurolinguistic programming ==
 
== FT2 and Neurolinguistic programming ==
  

Revision as of 05:34, 17 July 2008

A satisfactory definition of NLP is impossible, given that it is really a hotch–potch of theories, some of which are based on legitimate science, but which have no connection with NLP, but is otherwise a messy soup of new age thinking that mixes hypnosis, psychotherapy and unconscious thinking (and any old rubbish that comes their way) into a suitably palatable omelette for the gullible. It is much favoured by trainers for its childish tricks for classroom courses. Its founders are Gregory Bateson, a now forgotten new-age sociologist, and his student, Richard Bandler (later drug addict and arrested for First degree murder in 1988) and John Grinder.

The purpose of NLP is clearer. It is more like a brand that sells the promise of unlimited potential by access to subconscious engrams, and body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards”. For example, it claims to ‘model’ the behavioural characteristics observed in top performers in their subject (typically top performers in businesses and corporations) on the assumption that copying these 'behaviours' will lead to success in business. See e.g. here http://www.inspiritive.com.au/talent.htm.

The word 'model' should not be confused with a scientific 'model'. A scientific model is a representation of the world which has explanatory power. It is not a mere list of conditions: a successful model must explain reality with the minimum number of assumptions (for example the geocentric model of Ptolemy contains many more assumptions than the heliocentric Copernican one, which rapidly superseded it).

Techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing and "meta modeling" proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language. It has been applied to a number of fields such as sales, psychotherapy, communication, education, coaching, sport, business management, interpersonal relationships, seduction, occult and spirituality.

The Principal Clinical Psychologist for Sheffield Health Authority, Dr 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”.

David Platt, drawing from the German NLP research website http://www.nlp.de found that

1. There was no bona fide evidence to support the use of representational systems and concluded that they did not appear to play any significant role in communication.

2. Use of predicates had little to no influence in building or enhancing rapport.

3. Eye-accessing cues appeared to have no significant positive or negative impact when utilised in personal interactions.

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’.


Heap (1988, 1989), Krugman (1985), Corbalis (1999), Beyerstein (1990).

[Donald Clarke “NLP – training’s shameful, fraudulent cult”]



FT2 and Neurolinguistic programming

Neurolinguistic programming receives probably more attention in Wikipedia than any other apparently scientific subject. The following articles were all started by, and mainly written by FT2.

Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:FT2/Neurolinguistic_programming&oldid=68661"