NLP

[Paul Makepeace]

On 9/6/07, David Cantrell <david at cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 05:55:58PM +0000, Chris Jack wrote:
>
> > It is also easy to find critiques of NLP that point to the lack of
> scientific evidence for such stuff as, say, looking up and to the right
> means you've gone into "visual" mode and so on.
> >
> > But none of that means NLP isn't valuable and hasn't helped a lot of
> people.
>
> There's real evidence of this?


Plenty of it. Classic NLP treatments like phobia cures, internal conflict
resolution, and so on are so commonplace in therapy your question in the
context of actual research and fact checking is more like "but does vinegar
really affect the taste of fish & chips?" or "can I get drunk from drinking
beer?" It's so blatantly self-evident as to be absurd.

> Trouble is, there's plenty of "evidence" for homeopathy and prayer
> helping a lot of people.

Not a valid comparison - there's a big difference between a feeling of
wellbeing coming from prayer (which is entirely real to the user in any
case) to someone who is literally screamingly terrified of snakes one minute
and able to handle them 10minutes later after a NLP double dissociation
treatment.

That's not to say I don't think some of it is dodgy (eye access cues, e.g.)
and under-verified. A lot of the scientific-argument criticisms of NLP apply
equally to a lot of the other social 'sciences' so without rigor that
critical angle's skating on thin logical fallacy ground itself.

P