>> You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you?
> No
Thank you. That's really the best I can hope for in conversations about NLP with skeptical people. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. But I appreciate your honesty in admitting you do not have first hand experience with NLP.
I am not a scientist myself, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an "amateur scientist". However, I am very very pro-science. I consider science to be one of the most important human activities. I also value skepticism. (E.g. IMO James Randi is a hero in the intellectual life of humanity.) However, that said, this is an area where science is out of the loop. This stuff works. It's rigorous and repeatable. It's not even hard to do.
> NLP has been subjected to [rigorous study, and testing], and it has failed to stand up.
That can't be true.
I don't know what the boffins did, but if they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish.
You've skipped pretty much most of my argument, but I'll humour you nonetheless. There's no such thing as science being out of the loop. Read my other comment, if you're pushing this unverified "technology" as a cure for depression, you're doing something dangerous and immoral. Just because you found value in this, does not mean it's an alternative to evidence-based, and tested methods. I also solved my depression by very alternative methods, but I also strongly advise people against the methods I used, since they're very much so a "your mileage will very" methods.
>If they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish
Consider if the scientific community; a group who has studied everything from astral projection, to the reaction that created the atom bomb; has been unable to replicate the anecdotal results, that it's possible the anecdotal results are caused by confounding factors.
The power of "I want to believe" is very strong.
> That can't be true.
But it is. From a 2010 meta-analysis:
The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by
knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept. The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical
research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63
studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting
the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative
analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the
ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.
18% is statistically insignificant.
Frankly, I'm glad you were able to overcome your depression. Really, the fact that you did this speaks more to your strength as a person than the strength of NLP. Overcoming depression isn't easy -- it's something I have also struggled with. Rather than credit this, I think you should be crediting yourself.
Frankly, comparing NLP to Scientology or homeopathy is silly.
> but I'll humour you nonetheless.
I appreciate it.
This isn't my first rodeo talking to scientific skeptics about NLP. Like I said, usually the best I can hope for it that the person I'm talking to is willing to admit they don't have any first-person experience with NLP. (They never do.)
It's not like I'm going to start a formal research program myself, eh?
Nor is reading a science paper purporting to debunk NLP going to cause a relapse of my old depression, eh?
(God I hope not! Now that would be some foul magic, eh?)
> There's no such thing as science being out of the loop.
I don't understand what you mean. You're obviously not trying to say that science knows everything already, yeah?
Consider the evolution of the field of Chemistry: it started as the pre-scientific investigation of the properties of matter we call Alchemy (which was shunned and even illegal in many places and times) and gradually became systematized into Chemistry, a proper science. Psychology is in the middle of this transition from an alchemical body of knowledge into a systematic science. NLP is the forefront of that process, the cutting edge. It's the first systematic, rigourous, repeatable school of psychology in human history. It's kind of a big deal.
> if you're pushing this unverified "technology" as a cure for depression, you're doing something dangerous and immoral.
Ah! Let me be clear: I am not "pushing [NLP] as a cure for depression" and if it seemed that way I misspoke.
One of the primary inventors of this "technology" did cure me of depression in a single session of hypnosis lasting no more than ten minutes. I am aware of how outlandish that sounds. Nevertheless, it's true. (And I'm sure my "miraculous" cure is not even in the top 100 of his most amazing interventions.)
I don't see the danger or immorality of sharing my story.
> ... does not mean it's an alternative to evidence-based, and tested methods.
Sure it is! It works. There's lots of evidence and it's been tested over and over again all over the world.
The problem here isn't that NLP is unverified. I verify it. The problem is that the folks who call themselves scientific psychologists evidently can't even begin to understand it well enough to study it!
>> If they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish
> Consider if the scientific community; a group who has studied everything from astral projection, to the reaction that created the atom bomb;
It's not one group, eh? To be clear, I trust physicists (in re: physics) more than I trust my mother.
> has been unable to replicate the anecdotal results, that it's possible the anecdotal results are caused by confounding factors.
Sure it's possible. But it's wildly unlikely.
At this point (2023) we're talking about millions of people using this stuff everyday vs. a handful of "scientists" who somehow can't replicate these simple techniques and patterns that (again!) millions of normal everyday people can! It's very weird.
> The power of "I want to believe" is very strong.
Er, kind of a tangent but one of the discoveries of NLP is the formal subjective structure of belief. The upshot of that is that you can literally rewrite your beliefs as you see fit. So yeah, I don't "want to believe", I believe what I want. Part of the reason I am so committed to empiricism is that I can't rely on belief.
> > That can't be true.
> But it is.
Let's not descend to "yeah huh" and "nah uh", eh? I know that some scientific psychologists have published some papers, but there has to be some error or incompetence. That's the only possibility (in my world view.)
> From a 2010 meta-analysis:
Got a link?
I'm going to tear though the abstract you quoted, and then go look for this paper. (I can do this all day. I am right, and this is important. I have infinite time and patience for this discussion.)
> The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept.
Right! That's the problem!
> The article presents the concept of NLP
First error: "NLP" is not a single concept. "Neurolinguistic Programming" is a catch-all term for a whole constellation of models and techniques, as well as the attitude and methods that evolved the models and techniques.
> in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base.
I've never heard of "the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base". I'll look it up, or do you have a link or more context?
> From among 315 articles
On NLP?
> the author selected 63 studies
By what criteria?
> published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI.
What's the ISI?
> Out of 33 studies,
Are there links to these individual studies? I don't have access to science journals.
> 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results.
I'd really like to see the individual papers. Without looking at them there's nothing constructive I can say.
> The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.
Right, so to me that just means that the science was done poorly. That's all. I know NLP works, so from my POV the problem must be with the methods of investigation.
> 18% is statistically insignificant.
I'm not a statistician, but it's not important. If you're willing to stick around and talk about it I'm more than willing to go through each and every one of those 33 or 63 or 315 studies and give my considered opinion of what they might have been doing wrong. Like I said in the other comment, I'm not a scientist nor an NLP expert, but for what it's worth (which might not be much) I'm willing to read the studies and tell you what I think.
> Frankly, I'm glad you were able to overcome your depression.
Cheers! It's hard to overstate how badly off I was. As you no doubt know, it can be hard for people who don't suffer from something like that to understand what you're going through. I remember one point in high school my mom turned to me and said, "I know you're not faking this because no one would ever deliberately be this miserable." (It was more comforting than it sounds.)
> Really, the fact that you did this speaks more to your strength as a person than the strength of NLP.
No. It doesn't. The fact that I was never suicidal speaks to my strength as a person.
The fact that Dr. Bandler cured me of depression in ten minutes speaks to the strength of his invention NLP.
> Overcoming depression isn't easy
Except it was. It took less than ten minutes. I didn't even have to do anything, I was in trance, just sitting there. Subjectively the process took only moments. It was only afterward that someone told that it had been about ten minutes. I've had farts that were more difficult!
It behooves us to pay attention to this fellow, eh?
> it's something I have also struggled with.
I'm so sorry. It's not something I would wish on anyone.
> Rather than credit this, I think you should be crediting yourself.
I know, but that's because you're wrong about NLP being bunk. It really was the world-class hypnotherapist who cured me.
I do credit myself with going to see Dr. Bandler!
Seriously, I had to do a lot of work on myself (using NLP) before I could even go to a therapist at all, and then I went to several in a row, who each helped but not enough. Eventually a relative died and I inherited enough money to afford to go see Bandler. If I hadn't, who knows... It's not worth thinking about.
Oh, but I saw that on the paper itself the author's name has an asterix:
Tomasz Witkowski*
This leads to a footnote at the bottom of the first page that says:
*Klub Sceptyków Polskich [Polish Sceptics Club]
(Followed by a physical address and an email address.)
So he's a Skeptic. In other words, he's probably strongly biased against NLP from the outset, eh? I'm no longer sure that reading this wouldn't be a big waste of my time.
When someone presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary further entrenches themselves in a belief, we're no longer dealing with a matter of knowledge, but of belief. Reading your response, you're just trying to debunk overwhelming evidence, and rejecting most of it out of hand. Or rejecting it in a way that indicates you don't understand how to interpret it. There's no real point in carrying on.
It is also worth noting that Richard Bandler's claims to hold a PhD are highly dubious. There's no record for a dissertation submitted to University of San Francisco under his name (see link below). It should go without saying, but my scepticism of someone who's PhD can't be verified to even exist, is immense. Again, being called "Doctor" without credentials is common in the S.C.A.Ms world.
But you haven't presented "overwhelming evidence". You cited a meta-study paper that was prepared by a member of a Skeptics club. It's like you're not even trying.
(Look, from Shannon's Information Theory we have the result that the unpredictability of a message is a measure of its information content. Knowing only one piece of information about that paper: that the author is a Skeptic, I can already predict that that paper will have a negative result. There's really no information there, eh?)
Like I said, if you're willing to pick some actual scientific studies I'm willing to read them with an open mind. I'd like to get to the bottom of this little mystery. In fact, I'm going to read a bunch of these (studies that are referenced from the paper you gave, and others I can find) anyway.
> if you're willing to pick some actual scientific studies
And I have. Meta-reviews are considered important, effective, and valuable ways of probing the state of the literature. Dismissing it out of hand because you dislike who prepared it is fallacious.
> Dismissing it out of hand because you dislike who prepared it is fallacious.
Please, it's like you cited a paper called "Do Ghosts Exist?" prepared by a member of the There's No Such Thing as Ghosts club. You don't feel at least a little bit silly?
- - - -
Anyway, I'm reading the paper now.
He starts out well, with a DB of 315 articles, but then discards all but 63 of them "based on the criterion of whether the journal in which the given articles were publisher was recorded on on the Master Journal List of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. This operation does not require justification
in more detail."
Okay...
That's about 20%. Didn't you just say that "18% is statistically insignificant"?
But for the sake of discussion, let it pass: we will assume that these 63 papers are a good sample of the available information.
He goes on to select "Thirty-three empirical articles, which tested the tenets of the concept and/or the tenets-derived hypotheses."
He breaks them down into three subcategories:
> 1. Nine works supporting the NLP tenets and the tenets-derived hypotheses (27.3%).
> 2. Eighteen works non-supportive of the NLP tenets and the tenets-derived hypotheses (54.5%).
> 3. Six works with uncertain outcomes (18.2%).
Note that in the abstract the numbers for "supporting" and "uncertain" have been exchanged:
> Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results.
Is 27.3% statistically insignificant?
Anyway, I'll dig through these papers but I doubt I'm going to find a "smoking gun" that invalidates NLP.
As for this meta-study, it's really just Skeptic propaganda:
> My analysis leads undeniably to the statement that NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever.
That doesn't really sound like an objective scientific statement does it?
What I find extremely weird and a bit concerning is where he writes:
> Here I would like to refer to the statement expressed by O’Donohue and Ferguson (2006), who propose that each type of therapy that does not have empirical supportive evidence of its effectiveness should be called experimental. They also put forward a suggestion that each case of performing such therapies without informing the clients about its experimental status should be referred to and treated as criminal activity. I fully agree with this view.
I mean, talk about gatekeeping, eh?
He wants people to be charged with a crime for not prefacing their work with his disclaimer.
He believes that NLP is nothing, yet it's somehow so dangerous that it needs a warning label? That seems irrational.
Anyway, I'm going to look through the referenced papers and see if I can figure out what's going wrong...
I've looked over the "works non-supportive of the NLP tenets and the tenets-derived hypotheses" and, well, in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."
Basically, in the mid-80's some researchers badly misunderstood a facet of NLP, researched it badly, and then declared the whole thing to be baloney. Here's a good (brief) paper describing some of the problems with the "research":
Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). Observations concerning research literature on Neurolinguistic Programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 589-596.
Since then, as far as I can tell, almost no one has done anything like proper science to NLP at all, at all. The NLP people are merrily doing their thing, the research psychologists are doing their thing, and "never the twain shall meet", eh?
I see you edited your comment to take a swipe at Bandler, eh?
Why are you carrying on if there's no real point? (Sorry. I shouldn't tease you. I do appreciate the opportunity to hash this out in a public forum.)
AFAIK people call him "Dr." out of respect for his genius and contributions to humanity, it's never occurred to me before to wonder whether he actually had a PhD. I mean, it's not really relevant? He doesn't need a piece of paper to do what he does.
Except that's not at all what Doctor means, not even remotely. Doctor has a specific meaning, and it's understood to mean a set of credentials. If you don't have it, but say you do, you're lying. It's absolutely relevant. If someone is claiming to have credentials they don't have, then they're untrustworthy.
> Gatekeeping the term "Doctor" is uninteresting, and it doesn't make your side of the argument look good. You have nothing stronger to dun him on?
I think the fact that he's claiming to have credentials that he does not is pretty damning. You have this utterly backwards. If I claim to have founded something groundbreaking, and it turns out I lied about my credentials, that casts doubt on everything I've done.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.
I'm sorry. I had no idea Doge Meme would offend you so much. Please accept my apology.
- - - -
I've had a chance to look over the papers discussed in the meta-study you cited.
I think you should look them over too, you might want to "adjust your priors" as they say in Bayesian modelling. The evidence really doesn't support your position.
Like I said above, Skeptics perform an important and valuable function in the intellectual life of man. James Randi has done a lot of good and important work, for example. However, in this case, it's clear to me that the Skeptics have erroneously identified NLP et. al. as "woo-woo". It's truly unfortunate.
In any event, thank you for prompting me to actually go look at the papers. It was kind of a waste of time (for me at least) but at least now I know (to my own satisfaction) what went wrong in the scientific study of NLP. One day we'll do proper science to it. I look forward to that day.
> No
Thank you. That's really the best I can hope for in conversations about NLP with skeptical people. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. But I appreciate your honesty in admitting you do not have first hand experience with NLP.
I am not a scientist myself, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an "amateur scientist". However, I am very very pro-science. I consider science to be one of the most important human activities. I also value skepticism. (E.g. IMO James Randi is a hero in the intellectual life of humanity.) However, that said, this is an area where science is out of the loop. This stuff works. It's rigorous and repeatable. It's not even hard to do.
> NLP has been subjected to [rigorous study, and testing], and it has failed to stand up.
That can't be true.
I don't know what the boffins did, but if they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish.