Councils still sending staff on discredited NLP courses
June 20, 2012
I recently sent a freedom of information request to every local authority in England asking how many employees they had sent on neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) courses in the past three years, and how much it had cost. The results reveal that NLP training is still widespread in local government, with some local authorities spending thousands every year on it.
First some background. NLP is best described as a set of communication “tools and techniques” that first emerged in the 1970s with a book called The Structure of Magic I by the movement’s founders Richard Bandler and John Grinder. Its fundamental concept is the primary representation system (PRS), the “internal map” which supposedly determines our actions and emotions.
The theory is that there are five basic modes of interpreting and relating to the world: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory and gustatory. If you’re a visual person you tend to think in images and use visual metaphors, whereas those with an auditory PRS talk to themselves and learn by listening.
Besides these behavioural clues, we can supposedly tell which PRS a person has by observing their eye movement – a visual person looks up to the left, an auditory person sideways, and so on.
Once you’ve deduced another person’s PRS, the theory goes, you can “tune in” to them by adjusting your own language and behaviour to reflect theirs. The result is that the other person will be more easily influenced or manipulated.
NLP’s roots are in psychotherapy and counselling but, having met with scepticism from healthcare professionals, it moved into the self-help and management training sectors, where it expanded rapidly. It’s not hard to see why – NLP’s claims must be enormously attractive to managers seeking to control recalcitrant staff, or salespeople trying to close a deal.
It’s a nice idea, but it simply doesn’t stand up. The PRS theory was discredited as far back as the 1980s (Michael Heap’s work is invaluable here) and the industry hasn’t managed to provide any compelling evidence since. Put simply, NLP has nothing to do with neurology or linguistics – at best it’s psychobabble, at worst a “shameful, fraudulent cult”. (See Martin Parkinson’s excellent Skeptic article from 2003 for a more detailed explanation – and debunking – of NLP.)
But it seems our local authority HR managers haven’t caught up. At least 55 local authorities have put employees on NLP courses in the last three years. Among the worst offenders are Suffolk County Council, which has trained 59 staff in NLP since 2009, Stockport Council (88), Coventry City Council (114) and Lancashire County Council (180).
A mitigating factor (perhaps) is that most of these councils have in-house NLP “master practitioners” who lead the training for their colleagues, so it’s more a case of wasted time and energy rather than money – although there’s a moral question of whether publicly-funded authorities should be actively promoting non-evidence based techniques.
Of those councils that did pay external trainers, there’s a wide variation in the cost of training. Coventry County Council managed to train 114 of its staff for just £10 per head, whereas City of Stoke-on-Trent paid more than £1,500 each for nine employees to be trained in NLP. Worcestershire City Council spent over £33,000 training 30 people as part of its “coaching referral programme”, while Melton Borough Council paid a staggering £2,400 to train one person. (Download the full results.)
These aren’t huge amounts of money, but in these straightened times can we really afford to fritter away ever-shrinking training budgets on pseudoscience? Why not just throw a party for council staff? It would do more for staff morale and industrial relations than tuning in to a kinaesthetic PRS ever will.
Topics, individuals and organisations mentioned in this article:
freedom of information • local authorities • neuro-linguistic programming • NLP • training
So you are saying it is a waste of money to learn how we and others communicate?
When somebody takes an NLP course with the intent to manipulate another it goes to show that they don’t understand NLP is all about clear communication and has ethics built into it (you can’t make someone do something they don’t want to do or violates their ethics) We distort and delete every part of our life everyday, by using NLP and a conscious awareness of each others language, we are able to understand each other more clearly. Eliminating hurt feelings and misunderstandings due to poor interpretation of another persons words.
@craig : “We distort and delete every part of our life everyday, by using NLP and a conscious awareness of each others language, we are able to understand each other more clearly.”
Your suggestion would be spot on if NLP was anything other than widely discredited bunkum, but as it is, training people to be better towards each other using a system that doesn’t work is a waste of money.
If these people need training to communicate perhaps they should not be in the jobs in the first place, unbelievable!
NLP got its name from the founder wondering what to call it and sitting at some traffic lights looked down at a couple of books that were at his side and saw Neuro and Linguistic – it is said to be used by mentalists (in the magic field) but this is only said as misdirection to the actual method used.
James, you invited me to comment on your blog following my Twitter comment.
Let’s get the bit where I agree with you out of the way first. Eye movements cannot help you know whether someone is lying or not. Yes, there are some (unethical) NLP protagonists out there who will tell you otherwise.
However, to discredit all NLP and its practitioners on that basis is unfair and biased.
NLP is a practice founded upon many different sociological and psychological schools of study such as Freud, Jung and Gestalt. At it’s best it helps people develop excellence in their relationships with others and helps people to understand themselves better. Whilst I understand that some of the language used in NLP can easily lead to misunderstanding and the way that it is branded and sold can be misinterpreted, I think it offers people genuine help.
As such I think it stands up well against other methods of developing self-efficacy or therapeutic approaches. Lastly, NLP is a founded on the subjective experience of people and therefore, if we are going to conduct research upon it, it should be researched using legitimate and balanced subjective research processes.
Hi Graham. Thanks for commenting.
I don’t wish to suggest that NLP trainers set out to deceive their clients – though, as you point out, some may do so. My argument is that there is simply no sound evidence for NLP’s core concepts and, until there is, local authorities shouldn’t spend public money (or time) on it.
Saying that NLP is based on Freud or Jung doesn’t really help your case, I’m afraid – I’m very interested in psychoanalysis, but its ideas are not based on science.
I have no doubt that many people feel NLP has helped them personally – the same is true for all human potential and healing movements. Those tempted to pursue NLP have every right to do so, but they should also know that it has no scientific credibility.
James, I’m not presenting a case. You disparage local authorities for buying in NLP training for their staff and yet you accept that many people feel NLP has helped them. NLP is a broad practice encompassing many things. One of which is helping managers and leaders work with their staff more effectively. If you look at any management or leadership development process it is unlikely that you will find any claims for scientific credibility (in my experience it is also likely to contain a number of elements from NLP practice). I’m not aware that there are any claims for NLP to be scientifically credible. However, science is also a broad study encompassing more than just the physical sciences. I’m very much in support of research but to research NLP we need to use methods that sit within the phenomenological end of the research spectrum whilst still subjecting it to the rigour that comes from evidence that it is valid, reliable and generalisable.
James, could you specify what you believe the “core concepts of NLP” to be? You are claiming that there is no evidence for such core concepts, but to be honest, to my knowledge there is only one such concept (and it’s certainly not PRS), which has only been reviewed once (positively) and which in fact is a bit of a truism in this day and age. There has been many more (still not too numerous, although growing in recent years) attempts to scientifically validate either specific NLP tools and the use of such tools for specific purposes (therapy, communication, business, etc.) and these attempts have been by far positive (of course I can provide specific bibliographic references if you are interested).
As such I am a bit surprised by what you are stating (nlp has no scientific credibility, etc.), although I think I might know where the problem lies, as this is not a new issue.
As far as back in the 80′s two american researchers, Einspruch & Forman (who, I should stress, had no previous associations with NLP), published a review of studies on NLP and pointed out that a vast majority of studies purportedly testing NLP were actually testing hypotheses which had little to do with NLP (including, in a few cases, testing the very reverse of what the NLP materials on the topic were stating). This publication, from the Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1985 has been woefully ignored by many of the researchers attempting to review the state of research on NLP. As such, most such reviews are pretty much worthless, as their authors have been unable – in fact, did not even attempt – to verify whether the articles they are reviewing actually have anything to do with NLP.
Neuro-linguistic programming is as pseudo-scientific as it sounds
The excuses (by NLP practitioners), are classic pseudo-scientific thinking. Confirmation biased to the last. E.g. Einspruch and Forman did no studies of their own. They just wrote a letter criticised Sharpley (1984). What NLPers like to dismiss is that after their criticism, Sharpley (1987) came back with an even closer look and even more to add from prior studies, and NLP failed even more resoundingly.
Later research shows NLP to be discredited as an intervention (e.g. Norcross et al 2006)
The biggest problem with councils sending people on courses on neuro-linguistic programming is that the trainers will be further spreading pseudo-scientific thinking and behaviour.
People need a better filter to deal with shoddy claims and bad thinking what with all the info overload we have to deal with daily.
Luckily neuro-linguistic programming can actually be of help: As an exemplar of pseudo-scientific thinking so that people can learn how to tell the difference e.g.:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpthepseudoscience/home
“E.g. Einspruch and Forman did no studies of their own. They just wrote a letter criticised Sharpley (1984).”
Actually, they exactly what Sharpley did – they prepared an analysis of the literature, pointing out to the errors commited. Using the term “letter” you suggest a short critique, while in fact their reply took 7 pages in the journal and was quite a substantive response.
” What NLPers like to dismiss is that after their criticism, Sharpley (1987) came back with an even closer look and even more to add from prior studies, and NLP failed even more resoundingly.”
Umm, no. What Sharpley did was pretty much ignore the problems pointed out by E&F. This has been discussed in length at http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/sharpley1.html and http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/sharpley2.html
“Later research shows NLP to be discredited as an intervention (e.g. Norcross et al 2006)”
Cherry-picking data, and in a poor way. Norcross did a poorly designed pool amongst his peers, not an actual study about the effectiveness of NLP. Actual studies about the effectiveness of NLP and NLPt as an intervention have largely been positive. The problem is not that the studies on NLP are negative – these pertaining to actual NLP are largely positive, that there are too few of them to allow a decisive statement on the issue.
For a few examples, take a look at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920803
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240
ollitt, D. , 2010 “NLP helps Metronet Rail maintenance employees to stay on track: Techniques prove their worth in a period of organizational upheaval” Human Resource Management International Digest 18, 4, 20-21
The first one, an analysis of literature on the topic, is especially worth paying attention to in this issue.
I am not interested in discussing the sociological issue of people disliking NLP and believing it to be pseudoscience. I am interested in discussing the actual research, because that is what a scientific discussion is all about. If you are interested in that, then we can continue, otherwise, it is pointless.
As for the website you linked for – it’s actually both extremely manipulative and extremely poorly done. Honestly, the website is so full of cognitive errors, logical fallacies and straw man arguments (such as posting movies by individual nlpeers as an argument against nlp in general) that it’s laughable. Honestyly, by the standards of the website, the Nobel prize is worthless, because Linus Pauling went bonkers after recieving it.
NLP as a modeling method, the field of NLP as a set of models, and especially NLPers themselves are certainly not without faults. But discussing them should be done according to basic standards of scientific debate and of debate in general.
Wow, it really does quack like a duck
Sorry Artur, but the pattern is all too easy to see and neuro-linguistic programming is obviously as pseudo-scientific as it sounds.
You have just tried to use a 1984 paper written by NLPers with financial interests to trump a 1987 paper written and quoted by independent researchers. Your confirmation bias seems to know no bounds.
In fact what you are doing is also highlighted by the latest review by Witkowski (2010) which concludes that NLPers have been using the NLP research database to fake the credibility of neuro-linguistic programming. He reviewed the research within the database and it trashes NLP rather than supports it. He calls the database a pseudo-scientific decoration.
In response to large peer reviewed published surveys that conclude with an extremely high level of discredit for neuro-linguistic programming, you quote the rantings of another financially interested party, NLPer Andrew Bradbury. If you want to see a measured response to the typically pseudo-scientific arguments of Bradbury, have a look here:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlppseudoscience/
Bradbury’s responses are both pseudo-scientific and ad hominem against a professor who simply and straightforwardly states the facts. Sorry but that’s the pseudo-science pattern.
Here I will make it clearer for you. Here is one of your quotes with a simple substitution: “Scientology is a modeling method, the field of Scientology is a set of models, and especially Scientologists themselves are certainly not without faults. But discussing them should be done according to basic standards of scientific debate and of debate in general.”
Again, sorry Artur, but you make a hysterical job of exhibiting the typically pseudo-scientific thinking of neuro-linguistic programmers.
I think the lady with the lollipop says it all:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpthepseudoscience/typical-nlp-flimflam/quacker-no1-andy-bradbury
“Wow, it really does quack like a duck” – ad personam already? Quite poor form. Please use ad meritum.
“You have just tried to use a 1984 paper written by NLPers with financial interests”
Interesting, since when were E & F NLPers or had financial interests in NLP? Can you provide any evidence for this claim?
Also, just to be clear, do you agree that it’s a paper now? A moment ago it was a “letter” according to your words.
“to trump a 1987 paper written and quoted by independent researchers.”
Umm, the 1984 paper was also written and quoted by independent researchers, so your argument is rather absurd at this point
“In fact what you are doing is also highlighted by the latest review by Witkowski (2010)”
I happen to know for a fact – after challenging Witkowski in person on the topic, from which he had to run away in humiliation, going so far as to threaten me with court for posting on his blog when I revealed his lies
– that the paper was only published because of his close personal and business relationship with the editor of the PPB journal. In fact, Witkowski has financial interests himself in discrediting both NLP and psychotherapy, as his company Moderator is offering coaching courses. The same company employs Dariusz Dolinski, the PPB editor, as one of it’s lecturers. Now this is an actual conflict of interest, which had unsurprisingly remained undeclared by either Witkowski or Dolinski, despite being in clear breach of the journal standards. This has all been documented online already, I even gave it an article on my blog some time ago http://blog.krolartur.com/?p=806 ).
In fact – and I realize you might not know it, since this is a polish-only issue (as you might notice by my surname, I’m polish myself), Witkowski is generally considered a discredited manipulator among polish psychologists. He had, time and again, proved to be unethical and manipulative of data and breeching scientific standards – up to the point of being openly called so in polish scientific journals (http://www.gtmentor.pl/publikacje/08_ps4.pdf ), while his KSP organisation has been openly challenged by the Polish Psychological Society for grossly unethical behavior and breech of standards ( http://www.ptp.org.pl/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=408 ). So a poor choice of role models here, he’s kind of the Andrew Wakefield of Poland.
“which concludes that NLPers have been using the NLP research database”
Umm, there’s no such thing as an NLP research database, at least not in the meaning which research database has in normal science. So what exactly was Witkowski using? A single unofficial website with a small selection of research
“supports it. He calls the database a pseudo-scientific decoration.”
True enough, the database is someone’s pet project, which makes Witkowski’s attempt to do research based on it initially flawed. Again, such a publication would not have been published, had it underwent proper peer review.
“In response to large peer reviewed published surveys that conclude with an extremely high level of discredit for neuro-linguistic programming, you quote the rantings of another financially interested party, NLPer Andrew Bradbury.”
No, in response to that I point out that I really don’t care about opinions, I care about research data. It’s rather sad, that you yourself don’t seem to. Now that’s confirmation bias.
“https://sites.google.com/site/nlppseudoscience/”
Honestly, I’ve already pointed out that the website is beyond absurd, and according to it’s standards, chemistry is a pseudoscience, since Linus Pauling, the Nobel laureate (both chemistry and, if I recall correctly, the peace prize) promoted mega doses of vitamin C quackery. The website itself is pseudoscientific.
“Here I will make it clearer for you. Here is one of your quotes with a simple substitution: “Scientology is a modeling method, the field of Scientology is a set of models, and especially Scientologists themselves are certainly not without faults. But discussing them should be done according to basic standards of scientific debate and of debate in general.” ”
You’ve made it clear, certainly- that you do not respect the standards of scientific debate and debate in general, possibly don’t even understand it. Please realize, that whether you put NLP, Scientology or even Marxism in the last sentence, it doesn’t matter – proper discussion should be to standards, both scientific and debate, NO MATTER THE ISSUE. You cannot rationally just say “ah, scientology, we don’t need to keep up standards about it”. It doesn’t work that way. Even if the other side doesn’t keep the standards, a proper scientific sceptic will always keep them on his side. Otherwise he’s just another quack. So I ask you to keep up with the standards of debate.
That having been said, Ian:
- either provide specific research on NLP – not eye movements, but specific NLP applications – which show that NLP is ineffective, and then we can discuss and compare it
- or refer to the actual research in favor of NLP which I’ve pointed to – research, to use your words, published and quoted by actuall scientists
- or lets… well, I need another quote from you here:
“Again, sorry Artur, but you make a hysterical job of exhibiting the typically pseudo-scientific thinking of neuro-linguistic programmers.”
Repeating ad personam arguments really doesn’t help your case. Post ad meritum arguments, or let’s leave it as it is – a scientific sceptic who claims research favours NLP vs someone exhibiting the behaviors of an anti-nlp pseudoscientific quack (to use your language – I know, I know, ad personam
Couldn’t help myself here 
).
I’ve already asked you for it to no avail, but I’m willing to give you another chance. Please prove that you’re not a quack and let’s have an actual debate about research. Or, actually, prove that you are a quack and discredit your attempts to attack NLP, the choice is yours.
Holy crap! How do you do it Artur? In the space of a few days you made neuro-linguistic programming appear even more pseudo-scientific!
Concerning ducks: It will read to most readers as “NLP quacks like a duck”. That’s not ad hominem. I did not say you quack like a duck. And I didn’t call you a quack at all! I spoke plainly about your arguments and what you attempted to do. None of that is about you quacking, going quack, quacking out of your arse, or being an NLP quacktitioner.
Neuro-linguistic programming is seriously just about the best example of pseudo-scientific nonsense for this age. What its practitioners are taught to argue is just hysterical.
Concerning your approach: Your tone just got really snooty. Most people understand the difference between snooty and intelligent. I think you should ask around!
Anyway, both Einspruch and Foreman published some minor papers on their own that gave positive results to neuro-linguistic programming. Then they ganged up on Sharpley, failed to provide extra evidence to show neuro-linguistic programming was valid, but simply slagged off Sharpley’s work. Sharpley 1987 came back a couple of years later with more studies and an even stronger statistical weight towards the failure of neuro-linguistic programming. He politely called it an untestable theory. Well, that of course means pseudo-science.
Did Einspruch and Foreman offer information later that took the balance the other way? Nope! You have failed to do that also. There is no evidence to support the boasts of neuro-linguistic programming! It failed, and you failed.
The pattern is similar to that of ID creationists. They criticise evolutionary theory and claim that gives ID creationsm equal credibility. Thats what you are doing, the pseudo-science shuffle!
Thanks for the blogs written in Polish. Sorry, not convincing. Your arguments (as an neuro-linguistic programmer) are as unreliable as the claims of any neuro-linguistic programmer. Witkowski got his article published, it has not been retracted, it stands as a review consistent with Sharpley’s review and all other reviews of neuro-linguistic programming published in reputable peer reviewed journals. NLP failed!
Now there are several published articles and books that have added to that failure and round off neuro-linguistic programming as a pseudo-scientific and discredited development. A large survey, including over 100 practitioners and published experts in psychology and neuroscience rated neuro-linguistic programming on the same level of discredit as scared straight programmes and dolphin assisted therapy. It is rated as more discredited than emotional freedom technique (tapping chi meridians). (Norcross et al 2006). Similar studies rate neuro-linguistic programming as a top ten most discredited intervention (Norcross et al 2010, Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010)
So your pro-neuro-linguistic programming arguments are about the same as those used by Scientologists, creationists and any other subject that moves more nebulously away from testability towards pseudo-scientific posturing.
Sorry, but that’s the pattern! Most HRM departments will understand that, its a shame that some will swallow the scam.
Here’s Antonakis again. Read it more carefully this time and try at least to avoid repeating the Bradbury style arguments:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlppseudoscience/
In other words, no specific research, just ad personam arguments to the max, rather rude as well. Sorry Ian,
As for ad personam arguments in your posts, to look at just a single one of your posts:
“independent researchers. Your confirmation bias seems to know no bounds.” – clearly ad personam
“programming, you quote the rantings of another financially interested party,” – this is ad personam against Bradbury, especially by the use of the term “rantings”
“Again, sorry Artur, but you make a hysterical job of exhibiting the typically pseudo-scientific thinking of neuro-linguistic programmers.” – and again, an ad personam
From your newest post, one of such numerous ad personam is the “snotty tone” attack. Really, that’s below even the most basic standards.
As for Antonakis – I did read it. Unlike you however, I do notice that he really doesn’t put too many scientific arguments, but a lot of rethorical ones. Similarly to you, although I will admit that Antonakis is better in that he doesn’t use ad personam, and you do.
As for Witkowski – I didn’t refer you just o a blog, I also refered you to a scientific article published about Witkowski’s manipulations. Interesting that you don’t refer to that. Nevertheless, your next statement is about as unscientific as it can get – claiming that NLP failed based on a single article by a discredited pseudoscientist (Witkowski) is similar to claiming MMRs cause autism based on Wakefield’s work.
Finally, I have specifically stated, that I am interested in discussing studies about the effectiveness of NLP,, and do not much care about studies about the social standing on NLP. You have failed to refer to the studies I have quoted (aside from ad personam about E & F, which is hardly a proper answer in a debate). You have failed to provide any studies about the effectiveness of NLP for your side of the argument. You have simply referred, again, to a study about the social opinion on NLP, which is pretty much worthless, as social opinion, or even courts, do not decide on what is, and what isn’t scientific. Research results decide that.
I am willing to discuss such research. Until you provide such research, unfortunately, you are simply showing yourself to be a total quack.
Because quackery is not just promoting something as scientifically proven, when it isn’t. It’s also claiming something to be scientifically disproven, when it isn’t. So stop quacking, my dear duckling, and actually show some research results against the effectiveness of NLP – then we’ll talk. Untill then, I’m out of this chat and further attempts at rethorical manipulation will be met with calling out such behavior openly as what it is – pure, unscientific quackery.
This bit is more a general commentary, and less of an answer to Ian (if that’s his true name – based on the website quoted and discussion style, I’m begining to suspect it might be a certain person described on Bradbury’s website for vicious and unfounded attacks on NLP and NLPeers).
I have to say, by the way, that I am spectacularly dissapointed. Having discussed NLP on a scientific basis with NLP opponents over the last two years or so, both locally and internationally, I have found literally ONE person who could actually join in the argument against NLP and provide a proper, scientific, non-rethorical discussion on the issue, up with all the standards of proper debate in general and scientific debate in particular.
What’s truly fascinating is that people who claim that NLP is a pseudoscience tend to not just use, but absolutely abuse pseudoscientific, manipulative and rethorical arguments themselves, without being able to use any research to back up their position, beyond what’s available on a quick browse through Wikipedia. It’s as if the ability to call something pseudoscientific made them no longer responsible for keeping with the scientific standards on their own, and just allowed them to have a vicious go at the topic. Rather depressing, to be honest and I sincerely hope that this effect is limited in scope to such things as NLP.
James, reffering to you as the owner of the blog and the person who made the claims in the beginning, and didn’t actually answer the question I put out regarding your post, could you perhaps join in the discussion with some specific arguments?
To refresh, my question was: what do you believe to be the “core concepts of NLP” , for which, you claim, there is no evidence?
I am really hoping for a specific, scientific discussion, if you want to base the criticism of NLP on science. Anything else is doing a great disservice not to NLP (wouldn’t care about it too much then), but to the scientific method itself (which I do care about greatly and hate to see it misrepresented in this way).
Well Artur I quoted Norcross et al 2006, 2010, Sharpley, 1987, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010). That’s pretty specific.
Though I don’t trust Wikipedia entirely, the citations themselves can be found in full here for anyone to check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
Artur, just a reminder; your first ploy was to cherry pick a single critical paper of Einspruch and Foreman 1984 and claim that it has been “woefully ignored” by subsequent researchers.
Sorry, but not only are you doing what neuro-linguistic programmers do as a habit (spreading fatuous nonsense), but you are doing it to promote a pseudo-science that you attempt to gain financially from.
Did Sharpley “woefully ignore” Einspruch and Foreman? No, he came right back in 1987 with a broader set of studies that showed the more resounding failure of neuro-linguistic programming. So you are simply pushing a myth promoted for confirmation bias as a habit within the cult of neuro-linguistic programming.
In fact, subsequent researchers correctly cite Sharpley 1987 as the unanswered review, and go further to point out the pseudo-scientific maneuvers of neuro-linguistic programmers when they attempt to retreat from the testable claim to more nebulous and vacuous claims about the so called difficultly elusive core of your “true and authentic neuro-linguistic programming”.
But thanks for providing us with more examples of the pseudo-scientific arguments of neuro-linguistic programmers. It can prove useful. Here is more useful information that appears to be a presentation at MIT:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfbw8nz3_1hqgpsbf7&pli=1
The slides 9-18 on pseudo-scientific distortions are very enlightening and point to NLP’s place as an inheritor of some of the concepts of scientology (dianetics).
It appears that neuro-linguistic programming is being used increasingly at universities as a key example of pseudo-science to help people to avoid scams and shoddy thinking. Its not surprising, neuro-linguistic programming has an entry in the Encyclopedia if Pseudoscience (Williams 2000), it gets a whole section in Crazy Therapies (1996), and is used as an exemplar of pseudo-science for helping educators understand the difference:
http://www.slideshare.net/DrJBowring/pseudoscientific-educational-interventions
It is likely that some HRM departments will be using neuro-linguistic programming in a similar way: as part of a larger museum of pseudo-sciences for people to identify and avoid, and to help them reduce the unwanted overload that is pushed at us by spammers and charlatans the world over.
The onus is on the claimant to provide evidence for the claims made. Artur, so far you have provided nothing but ID creationist style attacks on independent researchers and a lot of other such pseudo-scientific bluster. Instead of providing independent positive published scientific review, you are pushing conspiracy theories and trying to poison the well by accusing me of vicious and unfounded attack. Your ploy is clearly pseudo-scientific, see point 9 on innuendo and character assassination:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
You are trying to sell something as ridiculous and boastful as neuro-linguistic programming. Amazing claims require amazing evidence. So show us something other than the already incredible evidence of pseudo-scientific posturing that is clearly part of the neuro-linguistic programming salespitch.
Sorry, James, wherever you got your information from, it’s incorrect.
For example, you seem to place great trust in Michael Heaps reviews, but I wonder if you know that those reviews were based entirely on the ABSTRACTS publish on a German website, NOT on the complete articles.
For a more balanced picture you might want to read this article:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/response.html
You should find it acceptable since it was published in “The Skeptical Intelligencer”, Vol 11, 2008 alongside an updated review by Dr Heap.
The owner/editor of “The Skeptical Intelligencer”, BTW, is Dr Michael Heap, and you can find a copy of his own articles – including the one from 2008 – on his website @ http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html
Again, no research quoted on the effectiveness of NLP. I pointed out that I am not interested in discussing the social standing of NLP (which is what Norcross, Glasner-Edwards and Rawson are).
Please quote specific research about the effectiveness of NLP OR refer to the research in favor of NLP I have quoted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920803
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240
ollitt, D. , 2010 “NLP helps Metronet Rail maintenance employees to stay on track: Techniques prove their worth in a period of organizational upheaval” Human Resource Management International Digest 18, 4, 20-21)
Untill that, you remain a quack.
And honestly, do stop sprouting catchphrases like “character assasination” and “confirmation bias”, when you clearly do not understand what they mean. That’s even more quackery from you, and the ID style arguments are yours in this discussion, not mine.
Oh, and you claim I did not provide a published scientific review, when in fact I did just that in my very first answer to you with this article in particular: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920803
So either you haven’t actually read my answers and are shooting blindly, or you are willfully ignoring arguments which do not fit your fixed perspective. Either way, that’s just pure quackery.
Artur, you are repeating the same old fatuous nonsense
A neuro-linguistic programmer (you) have shown to have been discredited already due to your already bounteous level of pseudo-scientific thinking and behaviour.
But a neuro-linguistic programmer cherry picking a couple of minor studies and ignoring the huge weight of independent published reviews just shows that you are extremely capable of confirmation bias.
There are already three independent reviews (Sharpley 1987, Druckman et al 1988 and Witkowski 2010) that take into account many studies and show the failure of neuro-linguistic programming. You really wish to repeatedly offer a couple of puny cherry picked studies in reply?
If you don’t see your own total lack of proportion, then I do feel pity for you. If, however, you are simply using repeats to push your pseudo-scientific financial interests, then you are simply a fraud.
OK, for those who would like to know about information literacy, dealing with pseudo-science overload, and checking out the facts: There are studies that support homeopathy. They are often touted by homeopathic practitioners for business. However, the larger reviews of homeopathy show a negative on effect. The same is true for neuro-linguistic programmers. Well, there’s my good deed for the day!
Here’s a laugh:
http://www.silvermondays.com/
http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/business.php?id=1773
They would no doubt love to hear your arguments Artur. Homeopathy and neuro-linguistic programming. I’m sure you could get some suckers in HR departments to buy into it also.
And here’s a helpful video with neuro-linguistic programming style rationalizations all over it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
Again, no research quoted on the effectiveness of NLP. Sharpley, Druckman and Witkowski all concentrate on the PRS’s, which are not a part of NLP. This is ID style argumentation – like claiming evolution is falsified because a specific adaptation had been falsified. Also, Witkowski is a discredited pseudoscientist, as described in peer-reviewed scientific articles which I have quoted, and he has a financial conflict of interest in discrediting NLP. How come this conflict of interest doesn’t bother you, while you were so happy to claim E & F had a financial conflict of interest?
Again, please quote specific research about the effectiveness of NLP OR refer to the research in favor of NLP I have quoted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920803 (an independent, peer review review of numerous studies which shows NLP works in phobia treatment – calling this a cherry-picked study is beyond absurd)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240
ollitt, D. , 2010 “NLP helps Metronet Rail maintenance employees to stay on track: Techniques prove their worth in a period of organizational upheaval” Human Resource Management International Digest 18, 4, 20-21)
Until that, you remain a quack.
James, as a moderator, I would ask you to intervene. I have now been insulted numerous times by Ian, as has Bradbury, and as have E & F. This is below any standard of discussion.
Oh dear!
Just a reminder Artur: You are the one trying to palm people off with neuro-linguistic programming. If that makes you look ridiculous, then I think people should be able to point out why your arguments are so ridiculous.
PRS were not the only element of neuro-linguistic programming that was investigated by those researchers. Of course PRS was a major claim of neuro-linguistic programmers. And predictably enough, it still appears in most books on neuro-linguistic programming. You see pictures of goggle eyed smiling faces in most books on neuro-linguistic programming, including those of Andrew Bradbury:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpthepseudoscience/typical-nlp-flimflam/quacker-no1-andy-bradbury
So not only have neuro-linguistic programmers claimed (after failing the test in the 1980s) that PRS was not really neuro-linguistic programming (a pseudo-scientific piece of goalpost shifting), but you still continue to publish it in your recent books as if it is a solid fact that is based on neurology.
Druckman et al (1988) also state that neuro-linguistic programming is ineffective as a method of persuasion. Your performance is also pretty good evidence of that.
In testing a claim, there is:
1 Face value (whether it is theoretically plausible)
2 Empirical testing
Neuro-linguistic programming is obviously pseudo-scientific. Thats why it gets ignored in general and only taken up by a minor fringe of researchers. Thats also why it gets rated as more discredited than qi therapies (EFT) and other such loony tunes. Also as we know empirical testing shows the overwhelming failure of the pseudo-science of neuro-linguistic programming.
Here is more detail on those facts from a real neuroscientist (and in the comments section more ranting from a pseudo-scientist Andy Bradbury) http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/neurolinguistic-programming-and-other-nonsense/
Sorry if you find that offensive. But pseudo-science does need to be highlighted as such, othewise unsuspecting and vulnerable people will end up getting conned by hucksters.
Ian, repeatedly regurgitating the same worthless rethorical arguments really won’t win you any points – it’s just quackery. Provide specific articles, or refer to the articles I have provided. Untill then, your actions remain pure pseudoscience.
Also, I would ask you to provide you proof that you are who you claim to be, as I now am convinced you are merely a sockpuppet troll. I am, of course, open to evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, I accuse you of being the exact sockpuppet which appears numerous times in the post you quoted (one can easily notice,that these sockpuppet personalities do not appear in the comments section in any other article on neurologica – which I regularly read, by the way
). Provide proof of your identity, or be revealed as a sockpuppet troll.
Artur, where is your sense of perspective?
I thought neuro-linguistic programming was supposed to allow you to think out of the box, rather than blinker you into ridiculous assertions and vacuous attacks.
I suppose when your claims get called out for what they are, if you cannot argue straight, the default ruse is to attack the questioner.
Sorry to point this out so clearly but your tendency is to place the burden of proof on the questioner, me. You are exhibiting yet another characteristic of pseudo-scientific behaviour:
http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_CogMaster_2011-12/docs/Lilienfeld_2004_Teaching_PseudoScience.pdf
Ok, now just looking at your website, its pretty obvious the type of “service” you are pushing.
http://www.krolartur.com/narzdzia-zmiany
You appear to be combining a bunch of pseudo-scientific fluff fields. RBT is kosher, keep up with that one. However the rest of the “tools” you offer include time line therapy (an NLP version of scientology time tracks and past lives therapy).
You are also combining neuro-linguistic programming with yet another piece of neurobabble: neuro-kinesthetic integration. Wow! What a mouthfull! OK, it turns out neuro-kinesthetic integration is a combination of stuff including “bioenergy” therapies and qi therapies.
http://www.krolartur.com/artykuly/53
Fantastic! Feel the force, darth!
Then you have more eye goggling with integral eye movement therapy.
http://www.krolartur.com/artykuly/115
Sorry Artur, but thats a lot of pseudoscience.
And sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. So far you have supplied only a miniscule piece of evidence that turns out to be selected based upon your particular confirmation biases plus a bit of financial interest on your part. The counter evidence is overwhelmingly towards NLP failure.
I am still open to changing my mind. All you need to do is supply evidence that somehow shifts the balance from the overwhelming failure of neuro-linguistic programming. I think you have a long way to go to provide evidence to support the other apparent pseudo-sciences you push.
Ian, please use google translator when you try to comment on my website
NKI, TLT and a couple of others in there are under the heading “I’ve trained in this, but I do not recommend these”, with a specific description of why I don’t recommend them. In fact, each page you’ve quoted starts with a nice bold declaimer stating, that I’ve trained in this method and I don’t recommend it. 
That having been clarified, you have now confirmed that you are simply a sockpuppet. You still haven’t replied to the research articles I’ve cited. You still haven’t provided any research on your own about the effectiveness of NLP. But since you claim you want more research about it, very well, as my last reply to you:
1. Bigley J; P D Griffiths; A Prydderch; C A J Romanowski; L Miles; H Lidiard; N Hoggard (2010) Neurolinguistic programming used to reduce the need for anaesthesia in claustrophobic patients undergoing MRI The British journal of radiology, 83, 113-117
2. Genser-Medlitsch & Schütz, 1997, “Does Neuro-Linguistic psychotherapy have effect?” Martina Genser-Medlitsch; Peter Schätz, ·TZ-NLP, Wiederhofergasse 4, A-1090, Wien, Austria
3. Karunaratne, M. (2010) Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
4. Pollitt, D. (2010) “NLP helps Metronet Rail maintenance employees to stay on track: Techniques prove their worth in a period of organizational upheaval” Human Resource Management International Digest 18, 4, 20-21.
5. Turan, Bulent and Ruth M. Townsley Stemberger. “The Effectiveness of Matching Language to Enhance Perceived Empathy.” Communication & Cognition. Vol 33(3-4), 2000, 287-300.
6. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920803
8. Tosey P. (2010) ‘Exploring Inner Landscapes: NLP and Psycho-phenomenology as innovations in researching first-person experience’. Emerald Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 5 (1), pp. 63-82.
9. Tosey P, Mathison J. (2010) ‘Neuro-linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching’. ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL, 47 (3) Article number PII 925747773 , pp. 317-326.
10. Mathison J, Tosey P. (2009) ‘Exploring moments of knowing: Neuro-linguistic programming and enquiry into inner landscapes’. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16 (10-12), pp. 189-216.
11. Tosey P. (2010) ‘Neuro-Linguistic Programming for Leaders and Managers’. in Gold J, Thorpe R, Mumford A (eds.) Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development 5 Edition. , pp. 313-329.
12. Woerner, J. and Stonehouse, H. (1988) The use of Neuro-Linguistic Programming model for learning success, School Science and Mathematics, 88:516-524.
13. Zechmeister, E. (2003) The impact of NLP on the performance and motivation of primary school children, PhD Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck.
14. Sandhu, D.S. (1994) Suggestopedia and Neurolinguistic Programming: introduction to whole brain teaching and psychotherapy, Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19: 3: 229-240.
15. Dailey, A.L. (1989) Neuro Linguistic Programming in peer counselor education, Journal of College Student Development, 30: 2: 173-175.
16. Brown, N. (2003) A comparison of the dominant meta program patterns in accounting undergraduate students and accounting lecturers at a UK business school, Accounting Education, 12: 159-175.
17. Allen, K., “An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic Programming Procedures in treating Snake Phobias” (in Dissertation Abstracts International 43, 861B), 1982.
So that’s seventeen peer-reviewed papers right off the bat, and there’s quite a few more where these came from
These include both single papers and broad research reviews. So, cherry-picking? You might still claim that, but you’d need to provide at least twice as many negative research articles to even begin to suggest chery-picking rationally 
But, a little prediction – you’ll ignore the list and keep on sprouting your unique brand of rethoric. As you’ve always done, under many fake names, online. A quack remains a quack.
Ok, you don’t recommend some of them, but you do recommend something called neuro-linguistic programming.
You recommend them based upon your cherry picked and quite laughable set of articles. Do we take your pick as a neuro-linguistic programmer and pusher of other such pseudo-sciences, or do we take the reviews of independent published researchers such as Sharpley, Norcross et al, Witkowski and Druckman et al?
Mmm! Let me think!
Well first up a lot of your refs there are from minor or fringe subjects, such as Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching. They push as much woo as you.
The Tosey refs are funny. He’s another one with vested financial interests. He’s a neuro-linguistic programmer/lecturer who seems to think he can prove NLP works because some people like it.
Sorry, but those guys got well and truly squashed here:
http://gjarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf
Notice Rodrique Davies also calls neuro-linguistic programming a pseudo-scientific title.
Its interesting to note that you don’t even list Sharpley 1987 here:
http://www.krolartur.com/artykuly/167
Just as above, you rather glossed over that one, trying to make believe that Einspruch and foreman was the last word on Sharpley 1984. Again, was that confirmation bias, or just a deliberate attempt to blinker the reader towards your bias?
So as before, of course homeopathy has some supporting studies, but just like neuro-linguistic programming it fails overall. The pushers ignore the overall and narrow the reader just like you have attempted.
HR departments often don’t see the scam.
Feel free to continue with your fatuous attempts at character assassination. You are adding to the list of pseudo-scientific characteristics of neuro-linguistic programmers very nicely, and turning out to be a pretty comprehensive exemplar of pseudo-scientific thinking yourself.
What do you know, the prediction was correct
Just ignore the article list with an appeal to authority and the -unfounded – cherry-picking claim. Brilliant 
Bye, bye, mr. duck. Keep on quacking, I’m done wasting time on you
OTH, if James or some other person actually interested in a debate comes up, I’ll be happy to participate.
Well sorry your evidence doesn’t measure up Artur.
I think this is actually a win win of a sort. You, Artur, got a chance to try to promote your business. And you provided everyone else with a hysterical example of pseudo-scientific posturing.
With your behaviour, criticisms of existing reviews, and lack of solid evidence managed to fit neuro-linguistic programming into this profile perfectly:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
You gave us a chance to see all the other pseudo-scientific therapies you have enrolled in: http://www.krolartur.com/narzdzia-zmiany
And especially with your attempt to reverse burden of proof and your attacks on critics, you fit the Lilienfeld characteristics of pseudo-scientific thinking very well:
http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_CogMaster_2011-12/docs/Lilienfeld_2004_Teaching_PseudoScience.pdf
If you want to really make your mark as a pseudo-scientist though, just think to yourself “What would Andy do in this situation?”
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpthepseudoscience/typical-nlp-flimflam/quacker-no1-andy-bradbury
Thanks for the performance!
BTW, those articles explain pretty well why HR departments can be conned into falling for such neuro-babble and flimflam.