Throughout history, NLPers have been hunted down by the Evil League of Anti-NLPers, who have waved the Torches of deBunk (+2 agility) at us and angrily shouted big, big words like ‘pesudo-science’, ‘quackery’ and ‘you’re too hot for NLP’ (I get this one all the time).
For every claim for NLP, you can find one against. What’s going on?
Is NLP all just a big bunch of hooey?
There’s a famous story in the school of martial arts that I do. Once, an unsuspecting student asked the grandmaster of my school about politics in the martial arts. The grandmaster looked at him; and bestowed these golden words of wisdom: ‘Shut up and train!’
Can the NLP techniques be empirically proven? Maybe not. Are some of its claims a tad dodgy? Yup (NLP for penis enlargement? Please. I’m not kidding on this). Is NLP just pesudo-science. Could be.
But so what?
There are lots of claims and anti-claims out there in the world of NLP. But what do all those politics have to do with your own training/personal development?
Was It As Good For You As It Was For Me?
The question isn’t really: ‘is NLP all a bunch of quackery?’, it’s ‘does it work for you?’ (or, like Kathy would put it: ‘does it help you kick major ass?’). NLP is the study of subjective experience after all, and what’s really important is how you’ve found the tools to be useful in your own life.
When I adopted the NLP presuppositions, which are like the NLP master beliefs, I had no idea whether or not they were really true. How would I know if it was really true that the map is not the territory? But when I adopted the belief, it expanded my perspectives and it brought much more benefits to my life.
And miraculously, testing the beliefs out didn’t kill me! Gasp! I had nothing to lose but goodies to gain! Which leads me to this final point:
When in doubt, test it out (intelligently, don’t do stuff like jump off a building or buy a Backstreet Boys album please).
Even though not all the NLP techniques have worked for me, enough of them have enriched my life in ways I couldn’t expect. I’ll share with you my personal story on how NLP has changed my life, dramatically in some ways, in my next post.
P.S. If you’re eager to get your hands on some NLP goodness, I’ll be sharing more of the NLP core beliefs in the next few posts. Stay tuned!
P.P.S. If you really really need to get your NLP fix, Robert Dilts (one of the original co-developers) has a excellent resource site.
P.P.P.S. Finally, the longly anticipated answer to the most penetrating question of all: is NLP better than sex: if it is, you need to get out more.
Update: I’ve changed the title of this post. Sounds funnier, don’t you think? 
NLP 101 Series:
NLP 101: What is NLP? Part 1
NLP 101: What is NLP Special for The Super NLP Hardcore
NLP 101: What is NLP? Part 2
NLP 101: So Dark The Con Of NLP
NLP 101: How NLP Changed My Life
NLP 101: The Map Is Not The Territory
NLP 101: There Is No Failure Only Learning Experience
NLP 101: Every Behaviour Has A Positive Intention
NLP 101: The Meaning of Your Communication is The Response You Get
NLP 101: You Cannot Not Communicate
NLP 101 Thoughts: You Cannot Not Change The World
NLP 101: People Are Always Making The Best Choices They Have
NLP 101: People Are Not Broken
NLP 101: You Cannot Not Communicate: The Pygmalion Effect
NLP 101: Everyone Already Has All The Resources They Need
NLP 101: There Are No Resistant Listeners, Only Inflexible Speakers
Recommended Reading for NLP Starters
Unlimited Power : The New Science Of Personal Achievement
Great Reads for the NLP Hardcore
May 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
“Can the NLP techniques be empirically proven? Maybe not”
Proven by who? If NLP is the study of subjective experience, the proof would inevitably be subjective? Lets also remember not so long ago science determined the world was flat!
Just a thought…
Regards
Nick Kemp
http://www.nickkemp.com
August 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
A nice thought, Nick
Wow, I see you’ve attended training with the founder of provocatic therapy himself, Frank Farrelly! I’ve never seen him but I love his book.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:58 am
A battery of controlled studies in the 80s showed NLP to be ineffective, especially for the purpose of influence. There are many interventions that do work according to controlled studies, but NLP isn’t one of them. Since then the only serious studies regarding NLP have been by social psychology streams who study pseudoscientific followings. They examine NLP groups (among other new age belief fields) from the perspective of how they sell pseudoscience and misconceptions about the mind. Such tricks involve repeating the mantra - “try it for yourself” and “you have nothing to lose”. What’s the NLP response to that fact?
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi Headley,
You say facts, but which studies were done by whom?
If I were defending NLP, that’d be the first question I’d ask. But luckily I’m not, and I wouldn’t. And because I’m Alvin, I can’t tell you the NLP response, but I can tell you the Alvin response.
Not all of NLP works all the time. There’s stuff that I’ve found very useful and stuff that I found doesn’t work for me. I’ve never used the Parts Integration technique much, but I have used it to help people find solutions.
And while some didn’t find much use in the Meta and Milton models, I have used them to get fine results.
A fine caveat here: some people will sell you the idea that because NLP can achieve some fast results, that mastering the use of them should also be fast. But it took me years to use the Meta and Milton model with skill - these skills are like any other, they take time to master.
So who would I be trying to trick to do what if I say ‘try it for yourself’ and ‘you have nothing to lose’, and if it doesn’t work for you, find something else that does?
April 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Hunt (2003) puts NLP in the same category as Scientology. NLP is mentioned more in cultic studies research nowadays as a cult or new age religion. Social psychologists call NLP a granfalloon (Devilly 2005) that sells pseudoscience using word of mouth testimonials alone (that contradict empirical studies). Sharpley (1997), Lilienfeld (2003) and so on all show that NLP failed controled studies, and the theories have been labeled as pseudoscience. NLP is characterized by naivety at best and at worst fraudulence. I think thats enough research. Basically now, the only interesting thing about NLP is how people get stuck into forking out for books courses and seminars on such a pseudoscientific new age religion.
Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
Hypnotherapy: A Handbook (Psychotherapy Handbook Series) by Michael Heap (Paperback - Jun 1991)
Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction ISBN 0-7546-3410-8
May 1st, 2007 at 12:21 am
Hi Headley,
You came back! And that’s a lot of research you came back quoting.
I guess if all those people say it doesn’t work then I suppose it doesn’t work, except that I can say I’ve made some of it work for me and must be the slight exception to the rule.
If it doesn’t work for you, or for anyone reading this site, I respect that and it’s fine with me, luckily for everyone involved you don’t have to fork out anything to read me then.
If NLP hasn’t worked for you, what has?
May 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Well there are quite a few well validated CBT methods. They tend to get presented in a way that gives an accurate idea of their efficacy so you know what to expect.
Understanding social psychology also helps sift the gold from the dross. It also helps to look into the history of other dodgy methods such as Dianetics to help you see the kind of scams the pseudoscientists are trying to pull even now. Thought field therapy and other such new age pseudosciences are good to learn about - just so as to get to know some other cowpats to avoid.
Basically just stay reasonable and avoid anything that looks like a new age religion.
Cheers
July 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am
i really liked this topic.. great blog!
September 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Oh, CBT? Which meta-studies (see Prof Bessel van der Kolk) have shown to provide no greater benefit than placebo?
Unfortunately a lot of NLP deserves another acronym (BS), but there is gold amongst the dross.
CBT may be useful for understanding the mechanisms of a particular pathology (not any other aspect including etiology), but the evidence demonstrates that it is not an efficacious therapy (and that merely understanding a problem does not provide any measurable benefit).
Alvin, I like your blog and your attitude. I think we may be soul mates
Best wishes
Christine
September 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
*Blush*