In this video, I am referring to an article that I shared and discussed on my blog a few years ago that featured on the research digest blog of the British Psychological Society (BPS) entitled “10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology” and it offers plenty of evidence base that refutes commonly held beliefs in the field of psychology. I got down to myth number nine of the article, where this was written:
“9. Neurolinguistic Programming is scientific
It’s true that a minority of psychologists are trained in neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and advocate its use, but it is a serious error to think that NLP is grounded in scientific findings in either psychology or neuroscience. In fact the system – which is usually marketed a way of achieving greater personal success – was developed by two self-help gurus in the 1970s who simply made up their own psychological principles after watching psychotherapists working with their clients. NLP is full of false claims that sound scientific-ish, such as that we each have a preferred “representational system” for thinking about the world, and that the best way to influence someone is to mirror their preferred system. A forensic trawl through all the claims made in NLP programmes found that the overwhelming majority are piffle. In many contexts, this may be harmless, but in 2013 a charity was called to book for offering NLP based therapy to traumatised war veterans.”
In this video, I discuss this and the reactions I have had from well-known NLP proponents over the years and share with you my thoughts, responses and rebuttals.
Related Links referred to in the video:
- 10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology.
- Richard Bandler interviewed on the BBC, as referred to in my video.
- Michael Heap’s NLP critique papers
Has this piqued your interest in this field? Then have a read of these pages:
1. Would you like a satisfying and meaningful career as a hypnotherapist helping others? Are you a hypnotherapist looking for stimulating and career enhancing continued professional development and advanced studies? Explore the pages of this website.
Adam Eason’s Anglo European training college.
2. Are you a hypnotherapist looking to fulfil your ambitions or advance your career?
Hypnotherapist Mentoring with Adam Eason.
Likewise, if you’d like to learn more about self-hypnosis, understand the evidence based principles of it from a scientific perspective and learn how to apply it to many areas of your life while having fun and in a safe environment and have the opportunity to test everything you learn, then come and join me for my one day seminar which does all that and more, have a read here: The Science of Self-Hypnosis Seminar. Alternatively, go grab a copy of my Science of self-hypnosis book.
Yet another example of an establishment using a straw-man argument to attempt to defeat something they view as a threat or outside their scope to control or monetise!
As you say, I’m not aware of any claims by B&G as to the science or evidence of NLP, yet it is now being stood up as such.
This logically-fallacious approach opens up the call for RCT’s that effectively set out to prove/disprove the efficacy of NLP and as we all know, scientific appriach has been used throughout history to prove/disprove all manner of things from how a bumblebee flies to the ‘magic bullet’ that killed JFK.
If it works – use it. If it don’t – forget it.
I consider NLP to be more of an art; a realtionship between artist and audience.
Maybe we should all go back tell all the thousands of people that NLP has helped down the years that they are in fact still broken and the happy, successful lives they received in return for their investment in NLP therapies was all a waste of money!
RCT’s for therapy only prove/disprove that on that particular day, with that particular subject and practitioner – using that specific approach or methodology – this particular result was observed & recorded.
That’s not to say that RCT’s & science-based study to prove the efficacy of NLP, hypnosis or whatever are invalid – far from it.
In a world that is dominated and controlled by self-appointed autocratic bodies we have to play by their rules.
I’m fascinated by the work done in this field by you and others, Adam; we need you and we need your findings!
But as Robert Anton Wilson said:
‘What the thinker thinks, the prover proves’
Hi Steve, thanks for your comment and the time taken.
Re: “Yet another example of an establishment using a straw-man argument to attempt to defeat something they view as a threat or outside their scope to control or monetise!”
Really? This comment seems a bit paranoid to me, I might be inclined to whip off the foil hat and look at what you can know for sure. Do they really consider NLP a threat, do they really want to control it? How do you know that? Who is “they” – as an NLP supporter, you can probably apply the meta-model to much of this sentence in order to highlight a great deal of problematic rhetoric.
Re: “If it works – use it. If it don’t – forget it.”
You are aware that hundreds of years of medical and psychological history has shown us that lots of what has worked for a great many thousands of people is no longer used, and why do you suppose that is? I mean, crocodile dung was used extensively as a contraceptive with great success, so why do we not continue to use it today?
I address this “as long as it works” type of attitude in another video you might like to watch: https://aecollegeofhypnosis.uk/video-the-as-long-as-it-works-attitude-among-hypnotherapists/
Re: “I consider NLP to be more of an art; a realtionship between artist and audience.”
Art and science are not mutually exclusive and in fact it takes incredible creativity to think critically and effectively.
Re: “Maybe we should all go back tell all the thousands of people that NLP has helped down the years that they are in fact still broken and the happy, successful lives they received in return for their investment in NLP therapies was all a waste of money!”
Bit of a dramatic way to make a point. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that no-one has been helped as a result of NLP. However, a lot of those claims of success have not been fully and systematically followed up and may perhaps (quite dangerously) be giving a false impression about it’s efficacy and thereby influencing choices that people could make about healthier alternatives.
Also, without any scientific scrutiny whatsoever, how can we be sure what is actually getting the results that are being claimed? With NLP being so utterly testable, why not examine it and pay it some scrutiny? Who knows, it may even develop and benefit as a result.
Re: “RCT’s for therapy only prove/disprove that on that particular day, with that particular subject and practitioner – using that specific approach or methodology – this particular result was observed & recorded.”
“Only” – Lol.
You are quite right, that is much of what they do, such is the scientific method. I am no science fascist and openly teach and advocate the notion that scientifically elicited therapeutic results are not representative of clinical outcomes which have a variety of other variables influencing and effecting outcomes.
Science is not necessarily about being correct, and we yield to superseding evidence when it arrives, but currently the field of NLP is rather bereft of such evidence. It’s pretty weak an argument (and therefore pretty irresponsible to use with clients in my opinion) to suggest “it was not designed to be tested, so we don’t agree to being tested, and we don’t need to be tested anyway because loads of people everywhere are getting results without the need for tests.”
Re: “That’s not to say that RCT’s & science-based study to prove the efficacy of NLP, hypnosis or whatever are invalid – far from it.”
Ah, thank you.
Re: “I’m fascinated by the work done in this field by you and others, Adam; we need you and we need your findings!”
Agreed.
Re: “But as Robert Anton Wilson said:
‘What the thinker thinks, the prover proves’”
He did say that. However, good scientific enquiry and well constructed methodologies employed know this too – and removes operator bias. A neutral hynothesis is developed prior to the experiment. The applicants, experimenter and results are blinded. Objectivity is highly sought after. Prior to publication, the results and paper is subjected to rigorous peer review and highly scrutinised. This is something well considered by many, many in the academic fraternities for decades and decades and thus any such “thinker proving” has long been thwarted and with respect, just highlights a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Best wishes to you, Adam.