NLP: Neuro-linguistic Programming

Wait, you can make money by teaching people to be condescending jerks?

Finally, a vocation perfectly suited to my most basic qualities. Where do I sign up?

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
May 26, 2009 8:27am

Thanks for this episode on NLP. Since I am a so called NLP Master Practitioner I now could go on and bash your talk. But I am not going to do this, since, in my understanding of NLP, you are quite right. It is definitely not a science. I have to admit, that during my classes I was never tought that NLP would be a science or had any , by scientific means, proof.
I conclude that you would agree, that NLP was modeled by looking at well trained people. Perls, Satir and Erickson. And I think we can agree on the fact, that the language patterns described in the Meta and Milton Model do exist. Its in our language....in English, German, etc.

I dont consider myself a psychotherapist. But what I do, using this models, is coaching. Some of this models seem to have a lot in common with logical fallacies. Some patterns are even the same, thou with another name.

I also have to agree, that a lot of people use this techniques in business and selling context. But they do it with or without dedicated NLP training. Its just how we think and describe our environment using our language. We would also do it if the term NLP wouldnt exist.

For me the only thing I have to keep in mind: where do my skills end. Where is the point, when it comes to real therapeutic issues.

So my conclusion: NLP is a way of communication. Its not a science. Its an idea.

"If it works, fine. If not, do something else." (R.Bandler)

Chris Tawfik, Vienna, Austria
May 26, 2009 11:04am

If it's simply a form of communication that people would be using even if NLP didn't exist, then why do we need "Master Practitioners"? Why do people charge money to point this out to people?

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
May 26, 2009 12:27pm

No offense to yo research but I believe Monty Python pioneered this technique in their 'Arguement Clinic' sketch back in the '60s.

Robert Jase, New Britain, CT
May 26, 2009 1:32pm

Why do people charge others for training them in sports? Running an kicking a ball is something, every human can perform, but some are natural talents and some have to train to achieve this "goal".

Chris Tawfik, Vienna, Austria
May 26, 2009 1:48pm

Chris, I guess the point is that training someone to run and kick a ball can have demonstrable benefits.

As Brian has pointed out in his podcast, what little the literature says about NLP is that it doesn't actually work.

In that sense, it is similar to dowsing - people can teach other people how to hunt for water, or gold, or anything else... but if they can't improve their performance above random chance and find any of these substances (and paid for the training or the dowser to visit), they have wasted their money.

If NLP has been scientifically tested, and it doesn't work, it is just a con (at worst) or self delusion at best.

You mention that it isn't a science - fair enough, however, the claims that NLP make *can* be tested, and it appears from what I have read about it, that it simply doesn't work.

Brenton, New Zealand
May 26, 2009 6:08pm

This is silly and superficial. You say you've read a fair amount about NLP. I don't know what that means, but you obviously have not read or thought in depth.

Your simplistic characterization of NLP as a confrontational sales communication technique is so far wide of the mark that I would suggest you read "Zen and the Art of Archery" before firing anymore skeptical arrows.

A less simplistic frame might be that NLP provides tools for modeling communication practices, but that too is incomplete. And, too, some NLPers have muddled things from their own inadequate understanding of what Bandler, Dilts, et al., were demonstrating.

Superficial, knee-jerk skepticism sucks just about as much as psuedoscience and breeds almost as much confusion and disinformation.

Glenn Oehms, Duluth, GA
May 26, 2009 8:02pm

Wow, I like to think of myself as a skeptic, and love Brian and his podcast, but have to agree that this is a little one sided.

I agree that anyone can learn NLP and it has a reputation among the woo woo crowd as being a cure all. This is a shame because it is (I have found) a very effective means of change in beliefs behaviors and attitudes. It is not generally used to treat severe psychological issues, rather to as the NLPer will say, teach effective ways to look at situations. The basic idea is your don't study people who are mentally ill and figure out a treatment, you study effective/successful people and teach what they do to a normal functioning person

I do believe that with NLP, there is a tendency like the early psychological studies in hypnosis that a psychologist with little or no training will conduct a study and find no effects. Early studies in Hypnosis involved a script played on a tape recorder and arm raised as an indication of hypnosis effectiveness. This trend of lack of expertize continued and the common meta result was little or no effect.

If one is to eliminate American research in Hypnosis and look into European studies were skilled hypnotists were used you get a different result. While I do not know I assume the same with NLP Research. Drug researchers do not use drugs made by people with only a understanding of chemical theory, yet psychology does tend to do this in studies regarding at least Hypnosis and NLP.

Andrew Dobson, Las Vegas
May 26, 2009 11:03pm

Great primer as I knew a bit about the reputation as a "jedi mind trick" from easily impressed sales people, but I never could get more details about it. Those who know of it keep it as a dark art and those who actually have been to university, to learn psychology, laugh about it. It isn't taught in university here in western europe at all. So where exactly is it taught seriously ?

Mr Dobson you can get the same results from the Book of the Subgenius and the technique known as acubeating... and for only $9.99 !

EspressoFrog, Nice, France
May 27, 2009 12:10am

In the world of important and tough decisions people like to see some kind of evidence for why governments/businesses/the mentally ill/ should spend either hard earned cash on some form of treatment. There is a whole world of treatments out there competing with each other, so it is only fair to expect some kind of reliable uncontroversial evidence which establishes a treatments efficacy.

So to all the NLP believers, sell me all the reliable evidence using standard clinical methods (e.g., double blind), showing that NLP works.

Brian has already provided two sources for his point of view, (which is apparently one sided according to Glenn) so I am expecting to be inundated with articles published in all the big clinical psych journals in support of NLP.

I agree whole heartedly with Brian’s comment about NLP not being a part of mainstream psychology. I am a PhD student in the area of cognitive neuroscience and this is the first time I have ever heard of NLP. However, as a student I am open to being educated, so let’s get this debate started.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
May 27, 2009 12:16am

Another very good podcast listen and reading! But why..Why Why Brian have you made your site Non "Highlightable" for Cutting and Pasting?. I have shared Many a great episode with friends and colleagues that need a little (or more that a little) education in scepticism.

Joseph Zappulla, Melbourne Australia
May 27, 2009 2:14am

Hi,

We have just added your latest post "NLP: Neuro-linguistic Programming" to our <a href="http://www.scienz.info"> Directory of Science </a> . You can check the inclusion of the post <a href="http://www.scienz.info/story.php?title=nlp-neuro-linguistic-programming"> here </a> . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the <a href="http://www.scienz.info">directory</a> and get a huge base of visitors to your website.

Warm Regards

Scienz.info Team

http://www.scienz.info

marie, moody
May 27, 2009 3:29am

Hi everyone,
Let me ask you all:
"Is this a skeptical conclusion or a skeptical delusion?" - you choose.

Regards
GaryGraye.com
http://www.everytherapist.com

Gary Graye, Manchester UK
May 27, 2009 11:47am

Double-Blind or Double-Bind? If you want to know more about NLP, talk to a practitioner (Prac), Master Practitioner(Mprac),Trainer or Master Trainer. You will probably get the same tired 'explanations'(read as repetitions) quoted from the gospel according to Bandler et al. over and over again. Few people actually question NLP short of actually asking questions about the technique they are learning due to the awkwardness of seeming to be confrontational with someone who seems to have genuine good interests in helping others by teaching.
Personally, I have huge issues with NLP and I have bothered to find out by learning (SNLP MPrac) and practising for a few years - alongside Hypnotherapy and a few other things too. Something I often come to is that what I am doing is working for the benefit of someone else and that though I am interested in how it's working (Bronson, we can discuss this at length) the client doesn't need to know.
As far as I am concerned 'NLPers' are cult members with Bandler and McKenna at their core. Grinder etc parted company years ago due to differences of opinion.
Frankly, I think NLP as a whole is nonsense though there are some very useful parts to it. It's not in the same league of pseudoscience (note my refrain)as crystal therapy, vortex healing, EFT, Acupuncture etc etc etc. and when used correctly, is very subtle and useful.
I'm open for discussion.

Darryl, London, UK
May 27, 2009 1:58pm

This website is becoming impossible to use. Not only am I unable to copy-paste from the original transcript, but I can't copy-paste comments I'm replying to, or search for words and names in the transcript and comments. The comment text box is useless since it doesn't let me move my own text around or copy it in case it fails to submit.

Max, Boston, MA
May 27, 2009 2:08pm

Thanks for this episode; I actually liked the stuff about being a condescending jerk. I've had to deal with people like that, who cross-examine and nitpick innocent remarks, and now I realize it's just an ill-humored attempt to control conversation and wear me down. Now I just need to develop defense strategies...

Mike, Washington, DC
May 27, 2009 4:21pm

I'm reminded of nothing so much as when a small child decides to reply to every answer with "Why?" If you can keep up, the kid eventually gets bored and wanders off (and it's an interesting exercise in how quickly you can continue a train of thought). If you can't, you get frustrated and a toddler is amused. If this were efficacious, I could rent out my youngest sister for purposes of psychotherapy!

Siobhan Duffey, Chicago, IL
May 27, 2009 9:41pm

The worst example I witnessed of NLP in practice was a nit picking, over analytical conversation between two close friends.

In addition to that, when I have had occasion to communicate with NLP practioners, I have felt patronized or cross examined.

If I need guilt and manipulation I can get that in religion and it's many guises.

Catherine White
http://www.speakersite.com/profile/catherinewhite

The Divine Miss White, Australia
May 27, 2009 10:26pm

Siobhan,

"5 Whys" is a tool to find the root cause of problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys

Of course, if you don't stop at 5, you'll end up with metaphysics. "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Max, Boston, MA
May 27, 2009 10:35pm

In the same way the author reserves the right to remove inappropriate comments, I reserve the right to NOT have my email automatically added to your mailing list.

Within thirty minutes of posting my comment I have received your newsletter, veiled with a thank you to commentators.

My request to unsubscribe is bouncing, in which case I am reduced to visiting your page to demand you removed my details from your data base.

The Divine Miss White, Australia
May 27, 2009 11:27pm

this sounds like a cult like phyicological mind contole

celestial-salamander, Australia
May 28, 2009 11:34am

I agree with Heap - if it is so great why we don't learn about it at school.

Man had discovered gas and we all have cars; man had discovered radio waves and we all have TVs, cells, etc.; man had discovered penicillin and we all can use it; man had 'found' for himself music and we all use it to make our lives more attractive…

So why do we have such great discovery of our mind and don't use it? Why NLP books are usually on the shelves between esoteric and psychology or self-healing New Age stuff, never on shelves about science. Why we don't learn about it at schools to make everyones life better?

Anyway - Brian I'm still looking forward Hellinger's Family Constellations! You've told me that you will attach that topic to this one -but there is nothing about it ;-( Still waiting!

Good job! Keep going! Great PODCASTS!!

Qayin, Wroclaw
May 28, 2009 12:51pm

Oh great, now we can't copy URLs posted in the comments, and I don't trust tinyurls.

Max, Boston, MA
May 28, 2009 3:43pm

Just wanted to drop a word of thanks. Been listening to Skeptoid for a while, and have advertised it to friends and family.

(As a side note: why do you think men are much more likely to be interested in "skeptic talk"? )

Please keep the good work!

Ricardo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
May 28, 2009 4:31pm

Google ads blocking the transcript at the moment:
"Meet Yoga Enthusiasts"
Scientology.org
SecretsOfHypnosis.net

Reminds me of Skeptoid #52 "Science Magazines Violating Their Own Missions" (by advertising woo products)

Max, Boston, MA
May 28, 2009 8:42pm

There was the question: if NLP is that good, why dont we learn in school about it?
I dont think this is a valid criteria for something being good or bad. We also dont learn about skeptic thinking in school...but we learn about religion.
I have learned with skeptic thinking, that the amount of people thinking something is right or wrong isnt a valid argument.
At some point in this discussion there was a reference to being a so called METAmonster. Picking on every single word someone might say. For me this doesnt describe NLP...it describes being an a.hole. Of course you can drive people crazy by doing this...but you can also achieve this by using a psychotherapy method on any given person. Or telling someone, without being asked to do so, about his medical condition and what his cough might be a symptom for.

In my definition NLP is not about the content, its about the pattern.

Eg: if we agree, that homeopathy is about placebo and not ingredients. How does placebo work? You believe that something is helping you which actually isnt, but you get the effect. So your mind does all the work. Thats what NLP modeling, in short, is about.
Find the pattern (taking a pill prescribed by someone with authority) and you will get the effect.

Chris Tawfik, Vienna, Austria
May 28, 2009 10:28pm

"Eg: if we agree, that homeopathy is about placebo and not ingredients. How does placebo work?"

Chris I suggest you read the discussion board for episode;

"The Placebo Effect (Skeptoid #151)"

The placebo effect doesn't DO work. People just don't get better because they think they are in a treatment group, the mind doesn't have that effect on the body. The placebo condition is just a baseline comparison condition. A large meta-analysis has shown that the condition of patients in placebo conditions does not improve after receiving a placebo. Placebo effects aren't really an effect so there is no answer to the question "How does placebo work" because it is a poorly considered question.

However, I'm not saying that NLP might not have an effect on the brain/mind. I'm just making you realise that the question is meaningless.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
May 29, 2009 12:33am

Hey Brian,

I concur with what you say about NLP in the world of psychology. But you can't mention NLP without mentioning one of the greatest NLP practioners I've seen, Derren Brown the magician.
Youtubing his name brings awsome examples of how NLP can be used to manipulate people.
He also has a documentary out called Derren Brown the messiah, where he convinces people that he is super natural. Link below.
Also I must mention his recorded show "Something wicked this way comes." Don't youtube it, it'll ruin the ending.

I do not say this to promote Derren Brown, but it's just really awsome how he can manipulate people, and those the are the greatest examples I can think of.

Here are youtube video links on NLP and etc.:

Derren Brown Messiah: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6477D53359C6BFC0

Martial Arts Bullshido (No-Touch Knockouts):
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5B4604CAC5038DE4

Sincerely,
Manuel - manni for short.

Manni, Miami, FL
May 31, 2009 1:11pm

Brian,
Your comments about NLP seem to be largely fueled by comments you have read, as you quote journals etc.
I, investigated NLP many years ago, as I am a somewhat skeptical person.
In an introductory weekend training I saw a person undergo quite a miraculous change. That got me really interested. I attended a full NLP training a couple of years later. During that training I did a 2 minute exercise that cured me of nail biting and that was 23 years ago ! Since then I have witnessed first-hand many example of NLP doing amazing things. My only regret is that I don't use it enough in my own life.
Greg

Greg, Sydney
June 01, 2009 4:01pm

Every single fiber of my 1)scientific training and experience attained while earning dual doctorates in cognitive psychology and neuroanatomy from Yale University and 2) 20 years experience as a practicing, teaching, and peer-reviewed published human experimental psychologist tells me that NLP is pseudoscience. Moreover, every single fiber of rationality and common sense in my being tells me that NLP is pseudoscience. And finally, after listening patiently, but critically, to "scientists" who espouse NLP, I have can only conclude that NLP is pseudoscience. What a shame. This waste of intellectual effort by otherwise bright people on such a completely unfalsifiable and unrealistic pursuit. They could be expending their passion on so many other truly noble causes.

A. Ashworth, Ph.D., San Antonio, TX, USA
June 01, 2009 6:19pm

Hi all

Here is a useful source on NLP:

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#

The knol article has a high rating, though its interesting to see the comments from some of the more zealous NLP authors.

The latest solid research shows that it is indeed discredited (top ten most discredited interventions)

Cheers
Alan

Alan Barton, Bedford
June 03, 2009 10:33pm

Manuel
I agree Mr Brown is indeed a fine illusionist/magician.
However if you read his book "Tricks of the mind" you will read his sceptical current view on NLP.
He basically states what Mr Dunning has postulated,that it is good for temporarily persuading some people some of the time to do some things.It is sales man techniques dressed as psychoanalysis.

Tekken, UK
June 08, 2009 6:15am

I thought this episode was a very insightful look into NLP. I've included it on my blog, because I feel it is an educational source to inform people in my profession. (http://jasonliem.blogspot.com/2009/06/nlp-psuedoscience.html)

NLP is technique for sales. It's simply another hyped-up way of spinning a product.

Thanks for a great episode.

Jason Liem, Oslo, Norway
June 10, 2009 6:26am

Oh, the meta model definitely works. I learned it in law school. It's called "cross-examination."

Ron Greene, Gilbert, AZ
June 10, 2009 1:18pm

so it's not scientific, but things that were once considered scientific also can disapear overnight.

What if science itself is wrong?
Science is only one method for getting answers.

The question should not be whether it uses any sort of methology in a way that is scientific, but does it get results.

Yes, sometimes even in people that supposedly are "uncurable".

It seems based on reacting in an unscientific way, trying things until you get results. It is specific in what sorts of things they look for, and even mathematical in the patterns they use, but not scientific because it doesn't start with a hypothesis of how to get clients better,

Science assumes no consciousness, no responding, and no listening. It requires you remove consciousness out of the equation. That's why they have double bind studies. But science can't even prove that consciousness exists. It can't prove anything right, only things wrong, but even what it proves wrong is only based upon our perceptions of reality itself.

Sure we have nothing but perceptions to base anything off of, but if it's what science uses, why try to hide our perceptional biases, if reality is a shared perception itself?

m, Los minaporlandovermont
June 12, 2009 4:35pm

M, why its matters its not scientific? is pretty simple NLP is claiming that it is. Any thing that claims it has a scientific basis must be able to prove it. Otherwise it should advertise being exactly what it is a sales technique.

What if science is wrong? well you likely need to be a bit more specific in the case of NLP I pretty sure science is right in the fact it doesn’t work any more than having a jerk a work yell at you. And I don’t know what you are trying to claim I has cured in the “uncureable” I know nail biting was mentioned above.

Science doesn’t assume no consciousness, no responding and no listening any medical test on the effectiveness of a new drug it directly testing for the body responding to it.

Double blind studies have not much to do with consciousness and everything to remove biases maybe you think this bias is a good thing, but if I from watching the Simpsons come to the conclusion that all Americans are dumb, then applying that bias to a medical study where I don’t even bother testing American made drugs because being made by Homer Simspons will obviously never work. That bias might lead me to ignore valuable medications. Hence why we remove bias.

Plus science can prove things are right, that why in school you learnt that the earth goes around the sun not the other way round. S scientific methods prove facts based on evidence, sure those facts are only good for this reality but seeing it’s the one I live in I am happy with that.

Claire, Melbourne, Australia
June 17, 2009 2:22pm

This is certainly one view of NLP, though my reading and limited experience with it suggest it's much more than just "being a jerk." It posits certain ways in which we organize our thoughts and perceptions, and asks practitioners to have "requisite variety," sufficient communication choices, to meet the person there. It also examines generalized presuppositions and challenges them. This is not merely being argumentative and nitpicky. While this article is persuasively worded, its grasp of the subject is remarkable lacking. To suggest that Perls, whose Gestalt psychology is practiced widely today, was no more than a bullying boor who pounded his clients into submission, is both dumb and completely untrue. Read GESTALT THERAPY VERBATIM and decide for yourself. Oversimplification and derision are not the same as healthy skepticism. This author knows practically nothing of his subject beyond an anecdotal history of its earliest appearance. I do agree that NLP is often pressed into service as a sales and manipulation tool. Anthony Robbins, for good or ill, has demontrated its effectiveness in that arena. If it works there, why not as a healing art? I know numerous degreed psychologists and counselors who employ NLP or derivatives of it in their practice.

Bobbo, Orlando, FL
June 18, 2009 2:41pm

The hard selling technique you described as the meta model is not what I have encountered. The re-affirmation of 'anchor' points the speaker made were indeed very powerful and I did feel that in the case of Chris Howards 'Breakthrough to Success' many of his techniqes were indeed sales tighteners and then there was a pitch at the end of the seminar section. But the sales angle was obvious, not hidden and to be honest perfectly legitimate. The benefits that you so conveniently miss, is that revealing your constraints and seeing them as part of who you are but not being guided by them is a very healthy and productive excercise. The other fact is. Not everyone is blind to the american multiple 'yes' sales technique. Also that NLP has been used very successfully in a non-profit driven format for healing for a long time.
if you are weak minded sure you may pay more money than you possibly should for this product, but that is a humankind problem not a NLP problem. Some peoples value systems are easily manipulated. Just look at all the people who read your posts having never been to a NLP event, as it justifies their negative position on new ways to look at a long standing issue or way of being. Both sides of this coin are valuable yet they will never see the other side.

Justin Cunningham, Auckland , NZ
June 22, 2009 3:00pm

This is one of the funniest discussions of NLP I have ever read. The caricature of NLP at the top is so wide of the mark that it just can't be taken seriously. And the bizarre complaints that Bandler had nothing to do with psychotherapy when he started are irrelevant. Einstein was a patents clerk, not a physicist when he made his discovery. So, what? We're meant to dismiss Einstein, too? The poor logic goes on and on all the way through the article. It's shoddy.

As for proof, well, let's take phobias. I have repeatedly had clients in my office who have undergone "reputable" treatments for phobias, anxiety, stress and lack of confidence. And I have cured them in one hit. The most extreme example is Joan Duchstein (testimonial available) who suffered bird phobia for 63 years. She had seen counsellors, doctors and had attended desensitisation clinics. Nothing worked. She came to me and I had her feeding birds by the seaside in two and a half hours. What more proof do you need?

The psychotherapy community gets upset with Bandler et al because they point out what so many have been afraid to say: that the presuppositions of classical analysis are bullshit. And he gets results.

Send me a phobic who's been through desensitisation and it's failed. I'll show you how it's done. I have a 95 per cent success rate.

That is all the proof I need, thank you very much. More importantly than any of this tossing off, my clients' lives are massively improved. That's what counts.

Matt Wingett, Portsmouth, UK
June 23, 2009 3:37pm

And thus we get the classic indicator of a purveyor of pseudoscience: guarantees and claims like "A 95% success rate!"

Can you imagine an oncologist hanging such a sign? He'd have his license revoked, and rightfully so.

PS - Yes, Einstein was working as a patent clerk as teaching posts were scarce, but he was a massively experienced physicist with several advanced degrees and a number of respected publications.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
June 23, 2009 3:46pm

Thank you Eric. That's the response I was expecting. What can you do with someone to whom you can repeatedly demonstrate the same results, over and over, and they dismiss them? It's like they deliberately close their eyes.

Instead of asking: "what is the basis for this, there is no proven theoretical underpinnning", why not ask: "something is going on here, let's try to work out what it is." Or is that a bit too radical?

If that's not your approach, then the term "pseudoscience" is a compliment. Thank you.

Can you imagine, in the early days of the Leyden Jar, your great great grandfather telling Benjamin Franklin to desist his experiments because there was no theoretical underpinning to his work? Franklin would have told him to go fly a kite! Thomas Edison patented his electrified incandescent light in 1879. The word "electron", and the now accepted evidence for electrical theory came afterwards. It was only in 1897 that the electron was identified by J J Thomson. But light bulbs worked before that anyway...

As for the failures I've had: I've been honest about them, and you scoff! There are many variables in working with people - I admit I missed something.

About the oncologist analogy: I don't understand it. I deal with clients with recognised dysfunctions that are often subtle, not terminal diseases. I do "cure" them.

Try this: go to a demo of a phobia cure. Better still if you have a phobia, experience the cure yourself. What's to lose..? Face, perhaps?

Matt Wingett, Portsmouth, UK
June 24, 2009 3:50am

Matt simply stop using other people's achievements to make an association with your own.

"Are you aware that no one believed Wegener's idea of continental drift until ..blah blah blah.." So this post is auto-magically right just because I mention Wegener. W00t ! Do I get a Nobel prize for free with that ?

As for Einstein he was a graduate when he published his first papers explaining brownian motion and then the capillary forces of a straw.

So, what have you published in Annalen der Physik ?

EspressoFrog, Nice, France
July 08, 2009 1:29pm

Hello EspressoFrog - I would have thought that you might have spotted the logical form of "argument by analogy" (one of the weaker forms of argument, admittedly!) But, sigh, instead you take the time-honoured line trodden so often by your compatriot Derrida, and deliberately miss the point.

Seriously, though, all of this silliness to one side, really, really, try putting on your scientific hats and go have a look at the NLP fast phobia cure.

Something is definitely going on. The last time I heard Richard Bandler talking about NLP he said himself that a lot of his description of process is simply a model which he pragmatically fits to events. As a modeller he deliberately sidesteps theory - simply using what works to achieve desired outcomes. So, in that sense, NLP is a pseudo-science. Yup. Completely agree.

But - and this is the point of the analogy above - SOMETHING is going on. So - you scientists - damn well get out there and work out why it works, instead of dismissing it out of hand. I've got case study after case study of cured phobias. Come on, put your thinking hats on and work it out! It's your job to play catch-up on this one!

Because I can tell you, it works. It really does.

Matt Wingett, Portsmouth, UK
July 28, 2009 3:34pm

Matt

Wikipedia provides examples strong criticisms of NLP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Now, you say that it works, and I won't contest your personal experience...but the scientific community sees no basis for this approach. It's not a conspiracy against NLP, it's a tentative conclusion that is awaiting positive evidence in favour of NLP's effectiveness.

Perhaps you can suggest some hypotheses that can be tested...some objective predictions that we can test in a controlled environment. If you're convinced that it works, then you will have no problem facing the scrutiny of science. Otherwise, why would one opt for this technique when there other methods that are known to produce scientifically observable results.

Until the scientifically repeatable and controlled testing is complete, it is only fair that the rest of us remain very skeptical of the claims made by proponents of NLP...especially since they do not seem to have a strong foundation in objective evidence.

John McCaffrey, Ottawa, Canada
July 29, 2009 10:10am

-I've got case study after case study of cured phobias-
A large body of case studies does not constitute proof of a methods therapeutic value; it is not a replacement for a well controlled study comparing the efficacy of the alleged treatment with other highly effective treatments like CBT. Possessing a large number of case studies only raises more questions like; how many people did not react to the treatment, is there a bias to report only positive results and not negative results, what is the rate of patients’ symptoms returning, etc?
The issue at hand really isn’t whether the NLP folks have a fully developed model for how their method brings about changes in patients thoughts, emotions, and behaviours (which would help their own cause). The issue at hand is simply establishing whether there is even a skerrick of evidence that the method has any therapeutic efficacy at all in a well controlled comparative study. You claim that scientists have dismissed the method out of hand, but Brian mentions studies that have attempted to establish the efficacy of the method, and concluded that the method does not work.
So the answer to,
- you scientists - damn well get out there and work out why it works –
Is that scientists HAVE damn well gotten out there and decided that it doesn’t work at all. If YOU think there is something to it, then YOU damn well go out there and collect some data. There is no reason why someone should waste their career trying to find what doesn’t exist.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
July 29, 2009 5:36pm

Thank you for saving my life...I had no idea what NLP was until I listened to this podcast. To make a long story short and simple, I thought THAT was psychoanalysis! Better late than never, but I still feel ashamed it happened to me without me even knowing it.

Sarah, south
August 01, 2009 10:43am

NLP has been discredited according to the latest research

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#

It has no face validity, construct validity, or reliably measured efficacy.

Neurolinguistic programming IS a cargo cult and a pseudoscience though. Neurolinguistic programming, scientology, dianetics, energy therapies, etc. Its all the same nonsense re-hashed.

Alan

Alan Barton, Bedford
August 11, 2009 12:57am

I practice using NLP techniques and have helped people with many issues from quitting smoking to curing phobias. It has real world applications and should be considered seriously.

I think the main issue is that the experience derived from it's use is largely subjective but that is kind of the point. Effecting real change in people's minds happens faster if they use their own processes to do it.

I have, on occasion, run into other practitioners that will claim NLP can do things like cure schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder and I make it point to call them out as charlatans because there are problems that require medication and therapy. Problems that no amount of Hypnosis or NLP can fix.

I think the biggest issue is that most people don't understand what it is. Its simply a careful, considered approach of communicating with intention. People do it every day. People who use NLP just do it on purpose. In fact, everything brought on by using NLP techniques, people can do for themselves, and they do. The reason that Practitioners can be so useful is because many people do not understand how they can create such shifts in thinking and behavior. People like me can help them re-think.

It's nothing mystical. It's just paying careful attention to the behavior and language of yourself and others. That's it.

Matt Hendrick, Ithaca, NY
August 25, 2009 10:39am

Master Clinical Hypnotist. Certified Master NLP Practitioner.......loads and loads and loads of clients have reported extremely good results with the combined use of NLP and hypnosis.

Jim Fortin, Dallas TX
October 01, 2009 5:42pm

I have done NLP sessions mixed with hypnosis. To me, the whole thing was a waste of time. The practitioner boasted that her clients included successful people who got much self improvement from her sessions, but I was not to be one of them.

You could get better results from a self help "positive thinking" CD, in my opinion.

paul conroy, Melbourne Australia
October 23, 2009 5:02am

I recall a discussion in which a particular guy was trying to argue against a statement that I made, and I remember it because he was trying to refute a point I made without bothering to ask for the facts I'd used to make the point. He just seemed to flatly contradict me.

I remember dismissing his argument for 2 reasons: 1) it didn't make logical sense - it was just a confrontational contradiction of what I said, and 2) he didn't even ask for the facts that he could have used to build a case against my argument.

After listening to this episode I recognise the structure of his statements for the psychological trickery that must have been. I remember feeling under pressure at the time, but I stuck to my guns because he didn't make a logical case - that's what saved me from folding under pressure.

Thanks Brian for helping me understand what these guys are up to!

Here's a little poster I made to raise awareness: http://bit.ly/7qFDmU

All the best,
D

Daf, London
December 01, 2009 3:27pm

This sounds vaguely similar to George Carlin's old routine on words. He hated people who said they felt "FINE", and how he'd come up with responses to "How do you feel?" like "I'm moderately okay" and such.

Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
February 01, 2010 6:36am

To the NLP testimonial vendors above:

Its really not a matter of waiting for it to be validated. To validate neurolinguistic programming one would have to wait for validation of "talking to the unconscious mind", subliminal learning, the power and supremacy of unconscious learning, right brain learning, and other such unvalidated or erroneous concepts.

You would also need to wait for the majority of the failed studies to be outweighed by success studies.

In addition, NLP was discredited according to a Norcross (2006) study that voted 60 pseudoscientific developments in terms of their level of discredit. Will all the woo on that list get validated some day? I doubt it!

Andrew Sandy, UK
April 12, 2010 9:15pm

Hi Bronson,

Been a long time since I came to this discussion group. I happened upon my name in a Google search.

Interesting point about CBT being highly effective. I did a trauma cure on the boyfriend of a child psychologist recently. It took about 4 minutes and I dispelled a fear he'd had since childhood. While I was doing it, the psychologist was cringing on my behalf because she thought it would all blow up in my face.

We ran a few tests on him to see if he still gave a fear response to the stimulus. All gone. She'd lived with him for about 10 years with his problem.

She didn't know what to say. She is trained in CBT and uses it on her clients. "But," she commented, "have you seen the exclusion criteria?" The point she made was that CBT works brilliantly on a particular personality type with a particular psychological configuration. But the 16 week programme with the kids she works with does very little for them, because they don't pass the exclusion criteria.

In contrast, we are trained to deal with what is presented. We change our approach time and again as we home in on the client's problem. Two people presenting the same symptoms often require radically different approaches. It is this element of subjectivity that I have been wrestling with in trying to build a validatable test.

If anyone would really like to help, do get in touch. You need to be a real scientist, and I'll gladly work with you. Contact me through my website:

www.lifeisamazing.co.uk

Cheers!

Mat Wingett, Portsmouth, UK
April 27, 2010 7:21am

I'm sorry I made a mistake earlier when I implied that NLP listed by Nocross in this 2006 paper as discredited. The mean score was 3.7 which means NLP was in the neutral zone: neither unlikely discredited or probably discredited. Also, the majority of the experts on the panel were aligned with CBT paradigm which would have biased the ratings. NLP was viewed in a significantly more favourable light by those from the humanistic and psychodynamic point of view.

Cheers!

Andrew Sandy, UK
May 29, 2010 12:27am

Unfortunately some people are promoting NLP as a viable coaching strategy for software development teams.

I've blogged about this: "Why we shouldn't use Neuro-Linguistic Programming" http://bit.ly/bdicaB

Dafydd, London
August 18, 2010 9:12am