Talk:NLP and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV Fork

After reading the main NLP article and then this one, I noticed that a huge amount of material is repeated, and in particular that this article represents (at least in its introduction and first half) a MUCH more positive view towards NLP. In particular the claim in the introduction that "There is significant evidence, both in research and anecdotally, that NLP does something significantly more than a placebo" Seems specifically contradicted in the last part of the article. There is, in fact, significant evidence that it does not.

It also must be rememebered that evidence that certain techniques 'claimed' by NLP practitioners to be NLP are in fact banal truisms or established counselling techniques, and therefore that evidence that they specifically work should NOT be presented as evidence for NLP as a whole.

Finally, a telling criticism of NLP is that, if it works, then why don't the people who claim to be masters at it use their skills to become fabulously wealthy. It would be easily done; go to a gambling even, use NLP techniques to convince the bookie you have won, collect winnings, repeat.

"..if it works, then why don't the people who claim to be masters at it use their skills to become fabulously wealthy" < --

The other side to this idea is that perhaps it tells only of the fact that "masters" of NLP have morals. Looking at it from another angle reveals to us that some people project this particular idea onto others because they can see that they themselves would actually do something like that (given the knowledge and a context) and therefore believe NLP masters would do the same too.

However, for some people, using their NLP skills to simply acquire large sums of money by manipulation and continuing to do so with complete moral disregard is a greedy and narrow minded pursuit/application of such knowledge, hence why you never see or hear of "masters" (such as Bandler, Grinder, Derren Brown, Bolstad etc) abusing their position as NLP practitioners.

- JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.79.237 (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits I am making

Just a quick explanation. I am basically going through the article and making it more encyclopedic. I removed the "What is NLP?" section because it simply isn't needed. We're an interactive encyclopedia. All you need to do is to click on a link to find out what something is. There is no need to have a What is section when NLP is linked above. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As with anyone, sometimes I write decent draft articles. Sometimes its good. Other times it needs or benefits from others review and some redaction, cleanup and copyediting. I think thats a common thing. WP:OWN says something about it, I'm sure :)
By collaboration and discussion, we seem to get decent quality information :) I'll head off to the other tab to go read the edits. I'm sure the edits are good and experienced ones. If there was by chance anything major lost by them, then I'm sure it'll get talked round. FT2 (Talk) 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Yeah I'm just trying to make it more encyclopedic. If I removed something that you think is needed, we can discuss it. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please -- and much appreciated. Sometimes when one tries to add info or get more in, one don't always balance the wood and the trees so well, and its really good to have others watching to double check it doesn't start going down the wrong track. It needs to be kept cited and balanced such (even if not all cites are in and some more {{Fact}} tags should be added at times)... so its valued :) feel free to add {{Fact}} liberally: it helps. FT2 (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text chunk snipped from old NLP article, to consider using in this article

"Some critics of NLP assert that the majority of methods taught as part of NLP have not been scientifically verified and some even classify it as a pseudoscience."
"In many traditional senses of the philosophy of science (see for example writings by Carl Hempel), this could be an apt claim: many of NLP's propositions are functionally untestable in the empirical predictions they seem to make, and those that are testable have often not been tested or have been tested with mixed results (see for example peer-review studies on the effectiveness of NLP modality matching techniques in psychotherapy). Correlational studies supporting NLP's ideas are limited or open to alternate interpretations and laboratory causal studies are almost nonexistent in the literature."
"In assessing the criticism of NLP as "unscientific," however, it must be noted that numerous popular psychotherapeutic traditions lack such clear, peer-reviewed scientific support as well. Psychodynamically oriented schools of therapy are criticized today for similar reasons, and Humanistically oriented schools of therapy often are as well. As the field's techniques stand today, scientificially evaluating the effectiveness of various talk-based therapies often tends to be a very problematic undertaking."
"Furthermore, in an Anthropological or Kuhnian sense, criticism of NLP as "unscientific" may be related to the aforementioned divorce between NLP's development and traditional institutions of science and psychology. In this vein, NLP is often hastily dismissed without earnest consideration by even non-scientist psychotherapists because the claimed efficacy of some NLP techniques seems "unrealistic" or "impossible.""
"By its nature, Science is skeptical of unproven claims, and anecdotal evidence - even accumulated over time and people - is not sufficient to establish a scientific fact. Thus, until controlled research is carried out, the claims of NLP practitioners that "in my experience it works" will not persuade scientists, for precisely the same reason that scientists do not often believe in astrology."
"The method of proof in NLP is different than that used by scientists; NLP places little emphasis on prediction. (However, note that some sciences lend themselves to predictive theories more than others.) While NLP models which have repeatedly been found useful may be regarded as generalizations which will usually (but not always) be useful, practitioners do not usually refer to these generalizations and do not extrapolate them into predictions for experimentation over extended periods of time. Rather, such extrapolation typically occurs within a single session by a practitioner working with a subject. The "hypothesize - predict - test - verify" cycle is performed in minutes and repeated many times during a session, on an observational basis."
"While NLP makes heavy use of the scientific method in the small, it lacks fundamental characteristics of science in the large, such as carefully controlling experiments, and subjecting them to peer review in refereed journals. It must be noted that those NLP practitioners who do conduct experiments and write up the results may find that the recognized mainstream journals have a policy to be overly skeptical of their results."
"Unlike formal scientific research, NLP does not have truth as a primary goal. Rather, it seeks to do things effectively and efficiently. Some have argued that NLP might be more properly classified as an engineering or technology discipline rather than a science. It has, in fact, been frequently marketed as a "technology" or "instruction manual" for the mind. It is worth noting, however, that many traditional definitions of technology define the word in terms of useful entities or ideas that are based on scientifically established empirical or theoretical principles."
"Because NLP does not possess empirical or theoretical claims that have been validated in the traditional scientific senses discussed above (predictivity, proof by experimental design seeking to establish causal relationships, correlational studies, etc...see Karl Popper and logical positivism for more on one method of approaching the philosophy of science), it is questionable whether or not NLP can even be properly called a "technology" in this sense."

[edit] FT2

I'm giving you a couple of more days and then I'm going to need to do some major editing here. We cannot let this article stand in this state (with the empty sections) for much longer. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for article expanding

Hello, guys, can you please start working on this article? We desperately need this article in Russian Wikipedia with sources, links etc. Eli the Barrow-boy 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From NLP article on 'Theory'

This section was moved from the main article.

Robert Dilts in Roots of NLP (1983 p61) explains neural functioning in relation to the adding of newconnections,Hebbian cell assemblies (Hebbian engrams), causal loops, and digital circuitry. From his observation of the work of scientist Konrad Lorenz, Dilts states that when learning experiences occur in our life, new neural networks are imprinted in our brains recording events and their associated meaning. Basing his conclusions in part on Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, Dilts states that these imprints "established at neurologically critical periods," could be later re imprinted or reprogrammed. (Dilts, 1990, p76,77). Practitioners such as Derks, Singer, and Goldblatt theorize that NLP processes can be explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams. According to Derks, NLP anchors are conditioned stimuli which work by activating engrams which are proposed "to give a patterned response which has been stabilized at the level of unconscious competence".

It appears to be mainly original research. --Comaze 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Comments

I should be honest and state that I find the evidence for NLP weak. However, I'll try to be bipartisan in pointing out a few issues with the article... Is "The Irish National Center for Guidance in Education" really a credible and authoritative source for anecdotal evidence? The article basically reads like it wants to say "Look, systematic reviews have failed to find much evidence for NLP but basically a lot of people [mainly NLP trainers] want to say it works and that's backed up by some comments in a leaflet by an obscure Irish charity." Surely, even the fans of NLP don't think that looks credible and balanced?
I think if you want to appeal to anecdotal evidence then you need to discuss in detail the established problems with doing so. This is a well-known minefield, that's why most researchers avoid it like the plague. There are notoriously high placebo and spontaneous remission rates for the kind of issues NLP techniques like the fast phobia cure claim to treat. That's one obvious reason why NLP practitioners, and other therapists, have been accused of tending to over-estimate their success. Beecher's (1955) famous study found the average placebo control group to achieve 35% improvement, some studies on anxiety show rates as high as 60% for sham therapies. So if you were to use a totally ineffective technique with 100 people you would still get 35-60 testimonials, or pieces of anecdotal evidence. That's why it's not worth the paper it's written on unless backed by independent research. This is a well-known (major) problem in psychotherapy research but NLP practitioners tend to ignore it, and this article seems to gloss over it.
Worse, anyone familiar with psychotherapy research knows that the seminal meta-analysis by Smith et al. in the 1980s showed that many different models of psychotherapy, using conflicting theories and techniques, tended to achieve similar effect sizes. All had fans who passionately proclaimed their effectiveness, but were unaware that they would have been equally effective doing anything else because what success they observed was almost certainly down to the notorious "non-specific" factors that all therapies had in common. That is, receiving attention, basic care, warmth, listening, etc. We've known since then that any psychotherapy can achieve success rates of about 60% due to these non-specific factors, basically a glorified placebo effect, rather than the specific techniques or concepts being employed. In other words, the NLP advocates who claim their therapy works in practice need to show more, that it works better than if they were to do something else instead, e.g., that rewinding a movie clip works better than fast-forwarding it, or just relaxing (as in systematic desensitisation). Anecdotal evidence fails to take account of comparisons with alternate methods, and so it tends to conflate genuine efficacy with the success achieved by non-specific factors, the placebo effect, and spontaneous remission. The appeals to anecdotal evidence in this article are seriously pseudo-scientific unless they address this obvious problem.
Finally, and I do apologise for the length of this comment but I has to be said, it creates a well-known problem if you depend upon anecdotal evidence, and one especially troublesome for for Wikipedia. That is, if the only "evidence" for a statement is the fact that "such and such" said so then its credibility obviously turns on the credibility of the person providing the testimony. That means criticism tends to have to focus upon "ad hominem" points, questioning the personal authority, or even honesty of the individual or groups whose "anecdotal evidence" is cited. For instance, if we are told to believe that NLP is spectacularly effective because NLP trainers claim it is, the obvious response would be to question whether these are intelligent, trustworthy and honest people. Given the well-documented controversies surrounding the personal lives and business activities of many leading lights in the NLP world -many of which probably abound elsewhere on Wikipedia- that potentially opens up a whole can of worms! HypnoSynthesis 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosynthesis. This is one of many daughter articles to the main article, some of which appear to have been written out of desperation given what was happening on the main article. The main article has been under attack for over 18 months by a long term abuser and multiple socks, all banned, although the most recent manifestation has only just been banned.[1] The POV pushed was that NLP was a mad, evil cult with links to Scientology etc. Other editors were (and still are) the subject of vicious personal attacks. Citations were invented and/or grossly misrepresented and all references and cites have had to be checked again. The editors battling against this on the main site are currently putting it in order. You should look at the main site (NLP) and read the discussion page and references there first.eg, the opening sentence of the section on psychology now reads:

The broad judgement of the evidence-based psychology community is that NLP is scientifically unvalidated as to both underlying theory and effectiveness.[18][5][19]Amidst pleas for further research there is much criticism of the failure of proponents to undertake adequate research.[34][35]Some classify it as a pseudoscience citing that many proponents claim a scientific basis that is not supported by research or current scientific knowledge.[36][35] [3]Others have suggested that any claimed effectiveness results from its reliance on a range of therapeutic techniques gleaned from other therapies rather than any new theories or techniques.[5].....etc.

The plan would be to deal with the daughter articles (of which there are too many and which are out of date) once the main article has been cleaned up.Fainites 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand what it's like having to deal with e-vandalism and stuff. Won't score me any popularity points for saying this but, to be honest, I think there is at least a grain of truth in the idea that specific NLP organisations/courses, without naming names, may resemble a kind of personality cult. I mean the way people are manipulated into accepting an ideology wholesale and suspending any critical thinking, incorporating Huna and other strange New Age beliefs, and uncritically idolising figureheads as if they were gurus. I'm sure NLPers won't see it that way but to an outsider it does often seem a little cult-like. If it helps to soften the blow, the same criticism has very credibly been laid at the door of psychoanalysis by several academic authors. 172.207.163.158 09:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. People who are motivated to create cult like groups will use any number of persuasion techniques and NLP is no exception. There is quite a long thread on the NLP talk page about this. [2] Have you read Singers book 'Cults in our Midst'? She defines what makes a cult a cult as opposed to merely some weird therapy. She doesn't actually mention NLP as a cult or even hardly as used by cults (although she's pretty damning about NLP in her other well known book 'Crazy Therapies'). Charismatic figureheads certainly feature. However, cults existed before NLP was invented. Some cults have arisen from the abuse of older forms of 'therapy'. As alot of NLP is based on hypnotic techniques it is inevitable that cult type organisations will use it and it may be that some culty type affairs have arisen from NLP groups. Tony Robbins may be borderline here. However, that is very different to saying NLP itself is a cult. It's far too diffuse, it has no worshipped charismatic leader (they all fell out!) and no concerted programme or aim. We can't even agree what the hell NLP is on the Wiki entry! There is an entry dealing with cults on the NLP page. The trouble was, there were a total of 9 citations put in by various abusers and socks to the effect that NLP was a cult. All were examined and all except one were false. The only one that wasn't and did actually name NLP as a psychocult was a Russian Archpriest called Novopashin. [3][4]This didn't seem enough by itself to call NLP a cult! We have quoted Langone who expresses concern about the use made by cults of NLP. Of course exit counsellors who rescue people from cults also use some NLP techniques. If you have any details of specifically NLP cults I'd be most interested to see them. You say 'without naming names' but we have to have verifiable, credible sources, ie name names or cite investigations thereof.Fainites 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Can't NLP Be Tested Scientifically?

I find the section "NLP And Science" very problematic. It is basically a lengthy arugment that NLP cannot be tested as a science due to various factors, but I find some of these factors nonsensical, while others have long ago been recognized and addressed in other fields that are verified scientifically.

  • "In NLP a 'hypothesis' relates not to human processes in general, but to the inner processes of a given person at the present time, the relationship between the observable exterior and the unobservable interior, and the presence of other potential processes and inner structures which may be evidenced by deduction or suspected from prior experience." This seems to be saying that different people may have different belief systems at any given moment. Fine. But these are not the hypotheses that would need to be tested in the study of NLP. Rather, the overall hypothesis would be something to the effect of "the practice of NLP produces visible results," which should certainly be externally verifiable.
  • "The methodology of NLP has therefore been compared to an engineering discipline, in that it seeks what works, rather than what is theory or true in a testable sense." Sure, but then the truth we are trying to test by scientific study is, again, "NLP works."
  • "A notable difference is that the subject-object or observer-observed barrier is explicitly removed in NLP." Standard science already addresses this problem at great length. See for example Objectivity (science).
  • "it is necessary to ask whether NLP is expected to act like a science, or whether it acts more like a black box in which the only effective measure is to statistically evaluate quality of output for a given input." Again, why can't we test the claims made for the "black box"?
  • "However, a high degree of variability in each individual trial..." This is hardly unique to NLP but exists in pretty much all social sciences, and medicine too. That's why we use large numbers of randomly selected individuals in a controlled trial; indeed, much of modern statistics was developed to deal specifically with this problem. See also experimental design.
  • "the vagarities of human whim and craftsmanship, and the existence of multiple optimal solutions, are inherent in NLP's structure." Yes, but evidence-based medicine also has this problem, yet it is studied scientifically.
  • "Overall, NLP's results are broadly at some level, metaphorical tools which are believed to have an unusual ability to indirectly manipulate neurological structures, to obtain subjectively beneficial ends (rather than natural entities that exist or do not)." Psychological research has exactly the same problem, in that the end states are subjective. This has led to the development of sophisticated measuring tools for internal states and attitudes. See for example the Beck Depression Inventory or even the good-old-fashioned IQ test. This is not an easy thing to do, to be sure, but we have reason to believe that such tools can be effective; these reasons are far beyond the scope of this comment.
  • "Used appropriately in situ they will be found effective or non-effective rather than true or untrue". Fine, but then we can simply test this effectivenes, as above.

Now, I am not an NLP expert, though I do have an interest. However, I am a scientist, and feel well qualified to comment on the techniques of scientific study. Thus it would be my inclination to clean up the points I have made above and incorporate them into the main article. In the interest of fairness, politeness, and in the awareness of my own possible ignorance, I first await a response from the NLP community.

--Jonathanstray 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "Comparison With Science" section to clarify the difference between being a science (which NLP is not) and being scientifically testable (which it is.) --Jonathan Stray 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does poor scientific appreciation mean?

  • "Equally (as scientific researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by other factors, not least of which are poor scientific appreciation of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, unrealistic claims by some practitioners, and often, lack of high quality experimental design."

... "poor scientific understanding of the subject being researched".

I know that one of the criticisms of NLP studies is that they didn't really understand NLP... as such I assume the article saying "poor scientific understanding of the NLP process being researched" is one of several reason most studies are not clearly supportive (or unsupportive) of NLP?

Just wanting to clarify. Greg 04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
ps. "obfusticate"?