Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/HeadleyDown related

Note: This page is for information on items that are presently missing, or potentially misrepresented, in the article. It is not a discussion page. Please discuss on the talk page as usual which will mean there is a record of it in the usual place. FT2 14:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Research articles

Here is some of the research and abstract citations (and outline of what was researched) that appears not to be represented in the article. I haven't reviewed them all in depth, the list is not guaranteed to be free of some reports with inaccurate abstracts or design error, they are a mixture of full papers and authors' abstracts, but taken together they suggest to me that the scientific view on NLP is "not proven and still being investigated", rather than "snake oil and pseudoscience":

I was not able to find full copies of some research I was curious to read. So I looked further afield:

Note: The summary section summarizes the research findings. Because of the volume of research, fuller details of the research in each case are given separately under "Abstracts and details", below.

Summary findings

Used ones have been commented out

You will notice an interesting pattern here. On the whole, the ones which reported NLP as working or of interest, seem from a casual glance to be those which tested it by its results and effectiveness in toto. By contrast the tests which failed seemed to be more likely to be those which attempted to evaluate NLP on the basis of one element in isolation, such as eye movements, or used NLP skilled subjects as an integral part of the experimental design (Buckner).

This is also supported by Platt's review (2001). Platt evaluated studies focussing on specific NLP points in isolation (such as predicates, representation systems, and eye movements) - and found that around 66-80% of studies found no support. Platt also evaluated studies of the effects of NLP applied in its complete context, such as phobia cures, and found that "56% found positive evidence to support NLP's effectiveness". His main concern was what NLP calls "ecology", and evidence of durability. Some of the long term studies that Platt could not find are referred to above.

You will notice that FT2 was happy to dismiss Platt, but now he is looking for Platt's support! DaveRight

The same hypothesis is also supported by Swack (1992) who found in a small trial of 10 that the NLP "10 minute allergy cure" gave 70% (7) success with 30% (3) relapse over time when no other technique could be used, but of these, 2 fully recovered when other NLP techniques such as Timeline and V/K dissociation were also allowed to be used.

That was not a longitudinal study, and there were no comparisons. Oh, sorry, I forgot you were a pseudoscientist!:) DaveRight

Abstracts and detail

masked

That was about 1/4 of the way though my list of NLP citations. Here's a few highlights of the rest from 1990 onwards:

• A major analysis of neurological research by Bolstad (2003) found that much of NLP had sound neurological backing in principle. Because of the length of this paper and citations, it is summarized on a separate page).

Bradford University's staff website provides an overview of a paper "Universities in Transition" subtitled "Devising a framework for effective staff development interventions" which states "Further inspiration and guidance has come from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)" (Sayers & Matthew, 1999)

Recognition by other bodies

Moved, see List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming

Narrative here is commented out for clarity

Corrections to existing article impressions

Sharpley (1987)

masked

Heap (1988)

masked

Morgan (1993)

This was the discussion on the article talk page:

Considering how little regard NLP gets from reputable sources, Dr Morgan's scientific followup and final word assessment is entirely relevant. It is also the view of a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist. ATB Bookmain 04:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dylan Morgan... "world renowned clinical hypnotherapist".

1. Dylan Morgans Bio [1] which if he was "world renowned" would presumably say so, lists no signs opf world renown. He was "editor" on a Psychotherapists journal, and lists his work gained due to his qualifications as: These qualifications enabled me at various times to be: Road Manager for a Rock Band; Civil Servant at a Government Research Establishment (the Official Secrets Act limits what I can say about this); one of the Paparazzi - I still have a collection of informal pictures of the Royal Family and the Scottish aristocracy; Lecturer at Universities; Photographer for The Edinburgh Tatler and Horse and Hound; Private Tutor; Winner of the Flowering Scythe Award for my Gardening; a Telephone Samaritan; a World Expert in noise generation by jet engines and high speed helicopter blades; and I have travelled to Russia, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Ireland, Norway, Yugoslavia and Sweden for Conferences and other purposes. (!)
2. Morgan cites his skill area as Ericksonian hypnotherapy. Erickson's methodology is the one unpacked within NLP which Erickson himself credited for explaining it "better than he could". Grinder and Bandler were the people who initially made Milton's skills - the ones that Morgan uses - accessible to the world, in "Patterns in the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton Erickson, Vol 1 + 2". Before then Erickson's work was renowned, but not well understood and close to unreplicable by third party therapists. It doesn't sound much like Morgan's calling their work "pseudoscience" if he bases his career on it.
3. Morgans works are (apparently) not peer reviewed. I could not find academic approval for any of what he called "Morganic" hypnosis. If an NLP trainer labelled his personal development "Morganic NLP", I think we'd hear "pseud" faster than you can say "hypnotic handshake"...
4. I have looked on Google for dylan morgan hypnotherapy. There is not one significant credible link in the first 100 that indicates any professional reference other than that one might expect from a practitioner who has a practice, has published books, and has a website with reference material. (By contrast, a search for stephen gilligan hypnotherapy -- a genuine "world renowned clinical hypnotherapist", and protege of Erickson -- has within the first page many references to interviews, conference speeches, pages referring to him as an expert, and the like)
5. Although not conclusive, most "world renowned" people have at least some reference in Wikipedia. Erickson has a Wikipedia article. Gilligan has a wikipedia article. Apparently Dylan Morgan doesn't. The only single reference anyone has made to this "world renowned" expert is here. Not conclusive, but noteworthy.

Morgan appears to have no especial standing to qualify him to make a statement any more than any other individual hypnotherapist. He is not evidenced as being especially academically reputed, nor apparently were the views you quoted academically (much less formally peer) reviewed, they are in the form primarily of an opinion regarding Heap's work. Morgan is most assuredly from the look of it not a world renowned expert, and his own self-written bio does not especiallly reflect the usual evidence of lifelong world renowned clinical expertise. His article is posted, apparently in full, on his own website [2], and clearly is a mere discussion and opinion of Heap. Last but noteworthy, his hypnotherapy site contains enough hype to more than qualify for labelling as "hype", in the manner that some label and dismiss NLP.

Although Morgan was eventually part-fixed, it was with extreme reluctance, and he is still retained as a source worthy of citation. It disturbs me that there was invention of fact (in this case, an attributed standing) to support this source. What disturbs me more is that it had to be fixed several times, reverted each time, and that even so he is considered a source of enough standing to warrant his comment being posted in the article.

Morgan published his article in a hypnotherapy journal, therefore it is admissible. It represents his view. Morgan's conclusion is that NLP uses methods that are "devious, indirect, and doubtful" and implied that he would not use such a technique. There are many hypnotherapists who agree with him. Morgan represents a hypnotherapists view that NLP is doubtful and devious. DaveRight 03:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The journal published is apparently the National Register of Hypnotherapists and Psychotherapists, not the National College of Hypnosis and Psychotherapy. The former is simply a hypnotherapists members referral group, the latter a professional body accrerdited by UKCP.

That quote is part of an argument from lack of imagination, starting with the words "In my own experience..." It is very clear it is a personal opinion. I note that DR slides very quietly away from questioning the standing of Morgan, and into weasel words that it is in "a journal" (to be precise a hypnotherapists association newsletter rather than a scientific one, and certainly not a Medline publication such as he requires any NLP research to be in) and that "many hypnotherapists" agree. Lastly it is factually incorrect. Morgan by his own website, recommends Ericksonian Hypnotherapy ..... which is lock stock and barrel a huge part of NLP (see above). FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

British Psychological Society

The article says that "The British Psychological Society classes NLP as 'quintessential charlatanry' ". In fact this is diametrically incorrect.

The Society not only rates NLP as sufficient standing to mention in their biographies [3] but also refer interested users to the UK Council for Psychotherapy, who are interested in finding an NLP therapist, grouping it together with Psychoanalysis, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and Hypnotherapy which are also not part of their remit [4] (The BPS is more psychoanalytically oriented judging by its board)

Indeed the British Psychological Society reports that in 2001 its NorthWest Chapter has held an NLP introduction event for its members. "This one-day event is aimed at psychologists, consultants, HR professionals, counsellors and students, or anyone with an interest in the practice and application of NLP."

Further, the British Psychological Society's 4th Annual Continuing Education Program (CEP) conference included a keynote speaker Leanne Harris (University of Hertfordshire) entitled "Exploring the use of neuro-linguistic programming as a first person methodology: Studying the use of imagery in changing the quality of experience". Its abstract reads:

"After years of being dominated by 3rd person objective research methods, there are now calls within psychology for a shift in this perspective to one which embraces both objective and subjective ways of knowing as equally valid and inextricably linked in the search for the understanding of human experience and behaviour... In particular, the workshop will draw on methods which have been developed outside academic psychology but which appear to have much to offer as an approach to exploring subjective experience, namely neuro-linguistic programming. NLP claims to be the study of the structure of experience. It makes use of questioning techniques which do not make assumptions about the content of experience, but rather seek to elicit the structure of the experience and how that structure affects the quality of an individual's experience. The workshop will incorporate an experiential elicitation session based on the NLP sensory sub-modalities model... The session will conclude with a discussion of the applicability of such techniques for psychology research."

Further again, at the end of 2004, the British Psychological Society has awarded its prestigious Level B accreditation to CDA for its new psychometric test, CDAQ. British Psychological Society Level B accreditation is widely recognised as a clear benchmark standard, and CDA is now one of a limited number of companies accredited by the BPS to run Level B training:

"CDAQ, which represents a new approach to personality testing based on cognitive psychology and neurolinguistic programming (NLP), has undergone several years of rigorous empirical testing. This was undertaken with the cooperation an extensive range of private and public sector organisations, including Toyota GB, Alpha Airports Group, Northern Foods and Essex County Council. The CDAQ psychometric test has been successfully applied in various scenarios, including training, recruitment, personal development, teambuilding and coaching, with users reporting that it is able to accurately identify thinking and behavioural preferences in their employees and recruitment candidates."

CDAQ’s Technical Director states: "When we explored the NLP phenomenon and the notion of metaprogrammes, we found solid ideas supported by robust psychological theory which provided a sound basis for understanding peoples’ behaviour and thinking." [5]

Forgive me if this doesn't sound totally like the BPS hold NLP to be "quintessential quackery." Whatever the source, it seems clear this information is diametrically in error.

Hi FT2. BPS is a huge body of psychologists and its job is to promote meetings etc. Take a look at their annuals. Their are a whole bunch of psychotherapists who talk about how NLP is total bunk, and regret having registered with their courses etc. The amount of criticism by psychotherapists about the BPS and other such bodies promoting pseudoscience (including EMDR, TFT, primal scream therapy, and even dianetics) is incredibly harsh. They hate it and bodies such as the BPS have induced mass boycott by lots of psychotherapists who know that NLP is pseudoscience. Pretty funny huh? DaveRight 03:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What's funnier is that in the article, the BPS can do no wrong, they are a professional and reputable body cited as condemning NLP as quackery. But now they are shown to be positively inclined to NLP, all of a sudden the BPS is untrustworthy, has induced "mass boycotts" and "hate" and an "incredibly harsh" amount of criticism. It seems DR has once again invented or "spun" facts to suit a POV, because I've seen none of that. Either way the point stands, that the BPS was knowingly misrepresented. Do you want to add to the BPS or NLP article that they have induced boycotts etc? I don't think you do..... you know the response you'd get. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

UK Council for Psychotherapy

So I looked up the UK Council for Psychotherapy. They are the umbrella accrediting body for psychotherapy in the UK:

In 1994 the ANLP (British NLP association) Professional and Counselling Services was awarded a representative on the Governing Board of the UK Council for Psychotherapy [6]. It continues to be a member organization in good standing of that body at the present time. NLPtca.com website and UKCP 2005 members list PDF

The more recent papers and books on NLP criticise such boards for encouraging pseudoscience within psychotherapy (eg Eisner 2000). DaveRight 03:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Such boards". Do they specifically criticise this one, for NLP, or generally any boards, for anything "pseudoscientific". There's little evidence that this is representative. In the meantime the one indisputable fact is, both these two credible UK bodies are supportive of NLP in the profession. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Druckman (1988)

Druckman (1988) who is stated to have said "There is no evidence to support either NLP assumptions or NLP effectiveness", in fact said a little more than this:

"Studies of the effectiveness of NLP are limited in a number of ways. The dependent measure used in most studies is client-counselor empathy, as measured on a paper-and-pencil scale (e.g., Hammer, 19831. This is not a satisfactory index of the therapeutic effectiveness of the counselor. One can find a counselor very empathetic but nonetheless ineffective in modifying behaviors or feelings. There are no studies comparing the effectiveness of NLP as an influence technique with other interpersonal influence techniques. None of the studies testing aspects of NLP has used NLP-certified Trainers as counselors, therapists, or eye movement monitors; thus studies that fail to support NLP are subject to the criticism that, if properly trained people had been used, the results would have been more positive."

"Many of the studies are concerned with testing whether influence attempts that match the PRS are more effective than those that do not match... Since the emphasis on the Preferred Representational System (as distinguished from the representational system currently in use) has been explicitly disavowed in informal communication, the relevance of this negative finding is diminished."

"Respected and responsible people who have been trained in the system report positively."

Platt (2001)

Platt (2001) in his article "NLP - No Longer Plausible?" is stated to have concluded that he found "NLP to be ineffective". But in fact he identifies that whilst it produces poor corerelation in isolation, when used in context it has produced positive results (noted above). He concludes (and this is far from "rejection") that it needs to temper its claims, and accept it has limits on its effectiveness:

"Does that make NLP bogus? No, it does not. But the research and the findings of the investigators certainly make it clear that NLP cannot help all people in all situations, which is frequently what is claimed and what practioners assert. In that sense NLP is no better than any other process or system. The immoderate claims that are made for NLP might be viewed a little more critically when viewed against this background. What conclusions can we draw from this body of evidence that casts more than a shadow of doubt over certain aspects of NLP? Well frankly, a degree of objectivity and healthy cynicism of some of the claims made would be a good start. I would also suggest that a realisation that NLP will not always work and that some other systems or approaches might be better applied would also be useful."

Platt also refers to 68 studies on preferred rep systems and 9 studies on phobias. Yet he got these all from abstracts, and from a site which lists 180 studies. There is no indication of why the other 103 studies were ignored or what they said.

Carroll (2003)

Carroll (2003) is portrayed in the article as research. In fact it is an opinion entry, for a skeptic's website. It is not at all clear how Carroll's neutrality as a source is assured. It is written in a somewhat sarcastic tone, and at times grossly misinformed. This, and his final paragraph, indicate it is a form of argument from ignorance:

"...when someone tells me that the way I squeeze my nose during a conversation means I am signaling him that I think his idea stinks, how do we verify whether his interpretation is correct or not? I deny it. He knows the structure, he says. He knows the meaning. I am not aware of my signal or of my feelings, he says, because the message is coming from my subconscious mind. How do we test these kinds of claims? We can't. What's his evidence? It must be his brilliant intuitive insight because there is no empirical evidence to back up this claim. Sitting cross-armed at a meeting might not mean that someone is 'blocking you out' or 'getting defensive'..."

(These are not NLP methods or approaches at all. This is straw man)

"While I do not doubt that many people benefit from NLP training sessions, there seem to be several false or questionable assumptions upon which NLP is based. Their beliefs about the unconscious mind, hypnosis and the ability to influence people by appealing directly to the subconscious mind are unsubstantiated... You cannot learn to 'speak directly to the unconscious mind' as Erickson and NLP claim, except in the most obvious way of using the power of suggestion."

(but see Cheek research above which did just that)

The article's conclusion is that: "This is not to say that the techniques won't work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn't matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether it works. However, how do you measure the claim "NLP works"? I don't know and I don't think NLPers know, either. [...]"

Thus out of the sources cited as "scientific research", we find that three stated in their paper or book, a belief that NLP may well work but that scientific measurement of this is unsupported at present, additionally, one had falsified credentials, one is a writer for a sceptics site and non-neutral, .....

Carroll writes books on warning undergraduate psychologists about the nonsense that pervades the self help section of bookstores etc. Carroll's treatment of NLP reflects what most people think of NLP. Just a bunch of pseudoscientific/pseudospiritual nonsense. DaveRight 03:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that comment of DR's about wraps it up. "Most people" think that? No... thats an editor's personal view masquerading as a weasel. And as pointed out, for a riter, Carroll is remarkable poorly informed on several readily verifiable matters noted, and writes with a straw man. He may be an author. He is not a researcher much less a scientific researcher writing peer reviewed articles. He is yet again an example of "Dave cites this critical and ill-informed author as a "researcher", but don't cite any NLP researchers who are professionally reported". Thats too far from neutral, Dave. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)