The larger Norcross study was conducted on general interventions. It places NLP with dolphin therapy, and rates it as more discredited than EFT. Thats pretty darned discredited!

Worse still, the human resources literature also points out the pseudoscientific nature of NLP. If its concepts are wrong, and it shows no efficacy in the sum of studies, then it really is well and truly discredited.

Sorry, but thats the finding.

There are a lot of fads, fakes, and fables being promoted in self-help. The coaching industry and the management training development are prime avenues for such pseudosciences. Its a sad sign of postmodern relativism. The advances in science over the past decades seem to have passed a lot of people by, and they remain mired in regressive thinking.

Well its good to see some sensible research on the subject

One of the first things I learned when I studied NLP was to respect the ways others see the world

We are all a product of different experiences so we naturally interpret information differently.

As a result, we probably have to agree to differ in our opinions sometimes.

Nevertheless I think you misrepresent some of the studies you mention.

The claim that NLP has been listed as one of the top 10 interventions is misleading.

It is misleading because you imply that it applies generally.

It is taken from the book “Clinician’s Guide to Evidence Based Practices”, which is largely about treatment of addictions.

On page 198 of the book is the result of an opinion poll of experts in addiction which states their view that “neurolinguistic programming is inappropriate for treating drug and alcohol dependence”.

I am not an expert on treatment of addictions – and would never dream of applying my NLP knowledge in that situation – so I’m not inclined to disagree.

But applying that opinion widely is like saying aspirin doesn’t work for headaches because it won’t mend a broken leg.

This opinion has no relevance to rapport building for example.

In addition, the link you provided makes a number of references to studies by Michael Heap.

I have read his work and his comments are interesting. He looks at a number of aspects around representational systems for example and says the evidence for some of the claims in NLP is weak.

Many of his comments are valid but again they cannot be applied to all aspects of NLP or all applications.

It’s also interesting that your link refers to his 1998 publications and not to his 2008 publication.

You can see more of his comments here.

http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html

I notice that he comments: “I must emphasize that I myself have undertaken no experimental work on NLP.”

His conclusions are not exactly a promotional tool for NLP but neither do they provide the damning evidence suggested.

He refers to a number of studies and finds that some support one point of view while others take a different stance.

He comments: “Like much research in psychology, the results [of the different studies] are not entirely consistent.”

There are many areas in psychological research where there is a wide range of different views.

I’ve found it interesting to dip into this material and I’m sure others will draw their own conclusions.

I personally have no specific interest in promoting NLP. It is one of a number of areas I have studied and found useful.

I’m sure many others will continue to do the same.

There is bias, and there is independent evidence.

NLP has now been surveyed by rigorous studies of over 100 university level lecturers, practitioners and researchers of neuroscience and psychology. The verdict is that NLP is one of a top ten of most discredited interventions.

It is implausible in concept, it has failed testing, and it is widely identified as new age pseudoscience. Now it has been discredited. Those statements derive from independent research results, not my own bias. My own bias is balanced by independent evidence.

Your bias is influenced by the fact that you are attempting to promote NLP.

Sam

Thanks for taking the time to leave your comment.

As someone who has already done as you suggest – and studied widely in fields such as communication, psychology and hypnosis – I don’t share your analysis of NLP.

Like many thousands of people around the world, I’ve learned a great deal from NLP that I’ve found valuable. I haven’t found all of it useful but we’re all free to choose what applies to us.

The link that you include makes some interesting points but it would have a lot more credibility if it set out a more balanced argument.

NLP these days is a fairly mainstream field which people are free to use as they please so it hardly satisfies any dictionary definition of a “cult”.

As there is no agreed definition of what’s included in NLP and no single organization for people interested in it to belong to, it can be seen more as an open-source collection of knowledge and study.

I agree with you that it is best studied alongside other related fields. But I think ignoring much of the study that has been done under the NLP heading would be a mistake.

When I read a sweeping generalization like “It’s a terrible thing to be teaching”, I have to ask – who says so, what exactly do you mean by “it” and what specifically is terrible about it?

Thanks again for your comments.

Best regards

Robert

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

Its pseudoscience. The worst thing about NLP is that it misleads people into saying stupid things, and holding perspectives that limit their thinking (relativism without reflection on reliable evidence)

Some of the things you mention above are ok and have some validity. But the very concept of neuro linguistic programming is misleading and pseudoscientific.

If you want to know how and how much the things you mention above work, then go straight to source. Avoid the Californian claptrap of NLP, and look at books on communication, hypnosis, and applied psychology. Spreading NLP is simply spreading a cult similar to scientology or dianetics. Its a terrible thing to be teaching people. Admitting to doing NLP to anyone who knows about communication and linguistics, is basically admitting to being a flake and a crank, and will simply make you appear manipulative.

Go to source. Bypass the pseudoscience.

Sam

Oleg Ks last blog post..Email Marketing + NLP = Huge Results

At the end of the day most people never carry out the “underhand” or “underground”
courses available as they lose interest and move on to something else.

Its long been an opinion of most that hypnosis does not work, but i disagree.

Just my opinion though