User:GregA/nlp

NLP and science
Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking. This lack of basis to the claim of "science" has resulted in some branding NLP a pseudoscience - though there is considerable criticism of both the early controlled research against NLP and the lack of adequate controls in more recent outcome-based studies which supported NLP. The results are contested, and the research not extensive enough, to say NLP has scientific support.


 * Early Research against NLP (sensory representations): The majority of empirical research was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s and consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis 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 in 1984, followed by another review in 1987 in response to criticism 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', and remarked that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders had made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there was no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines.  Neither was this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spent much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP. A research committee in 1988 working for United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions - firstly that they "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." . The conclusions of Heap and Sharpley have been contested  on the grounds that the studies demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the claims of NLP and that the interviewers involved in the many of the studies had inadequate training/competence in NLP.

The principle of Modeling is fundamental to NLP. Modeling requires that the practitioner not form a theory of what or why something is done which might filter the perception of what's actually occurring - just be open to learning through observation. From this a "model" of how to do something can be formed. Forming this 'theory' of how the model does what they do is avoided for as long as possible, and avoids any underlying reasons why the subject of the modeling does it their way.


 * Early comment on modeling: The second conclusion in 1988 for the United States National Research Council was that they "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."
 * Scientific criticism of theory:

and while NLP's modeling is a systematic study of behavior it doesn't train participants to use the scientific method to test their results. Few NLP trainings teach modeling.

At the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification.

However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.

There are three main criticisms of NLP.


 * 1)  NLP's claims for scientific respectability are fake, and it is really a pseudoscience, since it not based on the scientific method.  Its very name is a pretense to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology.  It has a large collection of scientific sounding terms, like eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, primary representational systems, modalities and submodalities.  Corballis (1999) argues that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability". According to Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies." With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society.".  Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory.


 * 1) There is little or no evidence or research to support its often extravagant claims.

Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence. Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change" (ibid). Tosey and Mathison say that "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".

These studies marked a decline in research interest in NLP generally, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology. Beyerstein (1995) argued that NLP was based on outmoded scientific theories, and that its 'explanation' of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function was no more than crude analogy.