I have just been reading the NLP entry on Wikipedia (one of my favourite sources of online information) and was shocked at how they got away with such a one-sided opinion.
So here is my views on it:
Everything has it’s critics. Which is fair enough
And NLP has been very badly misused and misold in the past which has a created a rather negative image in some areas (and with very good reason), because it is a highly deregulated field and there are so many chancers out there doing it, most of which, sadly, are rubbish at NLP! But tell me of something that hasn’t been misused and misold to make someone rich?
The scientific section is a somewhat selective and one sided list of experiments about the validity of NLP. There is a long list of scientific studies that have found in favour of NLP here: http://www.eanlpt.org/research.html
And Selarno’s findings haved been deeply criticised, so that doesn’t help their case!!
Psychology in general is a rather woolly area when in comes to science, most mainstream psychological theories vastly contradict each other. And most “hard scientists” (which I suspect the person who wrote this argument is) hate psychology anyway, cos you can’t pin it down to fixed theories and “truths”.
(Really these hard scientists are as bad as fundamental religious nuts. If that’s what they want to believe then all power to them, but I hate the way they have this need to convert everyone to their way of thinking. Because everyone else it wrong! They have such a rigid world view…)
NLP seems to be a field that creates very emotive opinions in people. So you get its really evangelical supporters (who don’t help the cult criticisms) who make wild claims and get all carried away with what they say it can do (not helping the “pseudo-science” claims)
I would strongly refute the “New Age” claims though and the comparisons to EST and Dianetics (which are belief systems first and foremost)
But it NLP is certainly not a panacea for all ills. It’s doesn’t work on everyone and it has varying degrees of success with people. But point me out a psychological process that does!
I have found that it works for people more than it doesn’t and I have helped a lot of people with it, which too me is much more important that some bullshit petty argument about its “scientific validity”. And when you explain the principles to people, it seems a pretty intuative model of the mind.
And really, if it didn’t work, at all, would it still be around 30 years after it was created?? I don’t think so! Even Dianetics works with some people, that’s why that is still around…
And that whole argument on Wikipedia is written in a very emotive way for its claims of scientific validity.
(ever notice that? Scientist claim objectivity, yet are often the most emotive when it comes to criticisms of other “non scientific” fields?)
it makes me laugh that they spend half the argument telling you that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t work and the other half telling you that it is dangerous and manipulative and BAD.
How can something not exist and be dangerous. If it doesn’t work it has no power and it if is dangerous it presupposes that it must work?
Talk about a contradictory argument!
And my final point. They claim it is all in the head of the person who it works on. Of course it is, it’s psychology. That is the definition of psychology.