Neuro-liguistic
Programming (NLP).
NLP appears to be at best pseudoscience, at worst a self-sustaining con. It
can be regarded as a 
Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) program – being taught
in seminars and workshops – and thus possibly competes with Landmark
Education, although less well known than that LGAT and less likely to harm
its participants. It is also distributed in audio programmes and books. NLP
has been called a quasi-religion and a New Age psycho-religion. Many practitioners
do have very strong New Age (and even occult) beliefs,
and use NLP to support and disseminate their own teachings. In this respect
NLP seems tailor-made for their purposes.
Wikipedia mentions some of the many things NLP is said to be effective for.
Bandler and Grinder [the founders] also claim that NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, myopia, allergy, common cold, and learning disorders, often in a single session.
...
According to Stollznow (2010) "Bandler and Grinder's infamous Frogs into Princes and their other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia. With its promises to cure schizophrenia, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and its dismissal of psychiatric illnesses as psychosomatic, NLP shares similarities with Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)."
...
Although the original core techniques of NLP were therapeutic in orientation their genericity enabled them to be applied to other fields. These applications include persuasion, sales, negotiation, management training, sports, teaching, coaching, team building, and public speaking.
However, even with such a long list of things it is alleged to be good for, there is no scientifically supported evidence to show that NLP is effective for anything. Quite the opposite – Wikipedia points out "Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents." The Wikipedia NLP article looks at why it is pseudoscience:
Among the reasons for considering NLP a pseudoscience are that evidence in favor of it is limited to anecdotes and personal testimony, that it is not informed by scientific understanding of neuroscience and linguistics, and that the name "neuro-linguistic programming" uses jargon words to impress readers and obfuscate ideas, whereas NLP itself does not relate any phenomena to neural structures and has nothing in common with linguistics or programming. In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience.
What evidence do NLP promoters rely on? A segment of Wikipedia's summary:
... there is a lack of empirical research or evidence to support the core aspects of NLP or the claim that NLP is an effective and rapid set of techniques for enhancing psycho-therapeutic practice, interpersonal communication and social influence. ...
The experimental research that does exist was mostly done in the 1980s and 1990s, and on the whole was unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP. It consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypotheses that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use. A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley which focused on preferred representational systems, in 1984, followed by another review in 1987 in response to a critique published by Einspruch and Forman, concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about "preferred representational systems". A research committee working for United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP's assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."
But it's not just 1980s papers which point out the lack of scientific evidence
for NLP. Gareth Roderique-Davies, Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the University
of Glamorgan, wrote a rather interesting paper
(PDF) in the July 2009 edition of Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education
that looks at the cargo cult
psychology of NLP. He summarises quite succinctly in the introduction:
This paper explores what NLP is, the evidence for it, and issues related to its use. It concludes that after three decades, there is still no credible theoretical basis for NLP, researchers having failed to establish any evidence for its efficacy that is not anecdotal.
And in the conclusion:
... NLP masquerades as a legitimate form of psychotherapy, makes unsubstantiated claims about how humans think and behave, purports to encourage research in a vain attempt to gain credibility, yet fails to provide evidence that it actually works. Neuro-linguistic programming is cargo cult psychology.
Even with the lack of evidence NLP is effective, why does it continue? It seems to amount to no more than anecdotal evidence – basically, people feeling that it works for them.
... critics argue that NLP's claims for scientific respectability are not based on the scientific method. In response, advocates of NLP argue that NLP is a pragmatic discipline, largely interested in what "works" rather than existing theory. ... critics maintain that the experimental research that does exist has been overall unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP, and that it is therefore up to the proponents to back up their models and claims of effectiveness with evidence.
This is sadly similar to how Theophostic Counseling operates – the pragmatic attitude of "it (apparently) works so we should do it" without bothering to figure out if it does really work, and in the case of both NLP and Theophostic, if it's something that Christians should be involved with anyway. What people perceive as working is not a test of reality or scientific truth. If it works it should be scientifically testable to be shown to work. The attitude of NLP supporters that they don't need to provide rigorous scientific evidence for NLP's assumptions reminded the New Zealand Cult List editor of how the Gentle Wind Project marketed its healing instruments – GWP claimed scientific studies had been performed but when pressed for details claimed the studies had been cut short because the healing instruments obviously worked so well they didn't want to deny the control group the use of the instruments.
Not all our readers agreed with our former Caution rating. A Christian who was involved with NLP "prior to being saved and born again" had this to say:
NLP is very dangerous; seems great as most things do – a form of brain washing, and changing one's belief systems and values very subtly. Used a lot in business and motivational type programmes, and become very secular in its appeal.
The Skeptic's
Dictionary NLP article highlights various inconsistencies between NLP beliefs
and reality, such as:
One NLP guru, Dale Kirby, informs us that one of the presuppositions of NLP is "No one is wrong or broken." So why seek remedial change? On the other hand, what Mr. Kirby does have to say about NLP which is intelligible does not make it very attractive. For example, he says that according to NLP "There is no such thing as failure. There is only feedback." Was NLP invented by the U.S. Military to explain their "incomplete successes"? When the space shuttle blew up within minutes of launch, killing everyone on board, was that "only feedback"?
The basic NLP tenet that "no one is wrong or broken" is not only self contradictory, but contradicts the Christian concept of sin. NLP also turns the focus of a Christian from depending on God to depending on their own efforts, abilities and attitude, in a similar way to Christian Science, Scientology and hypnotism.
Our thanks to British NLP practitioner Andrew Bradbury for his help in preparing this listing, grudgingly given though it was at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Printed on 18 December 2019 at www.cults.co.nz.
Close window