Re: Concerns (long)
Hi,
Somehow I missed this article the first time 'round, but since it
concerns a lot of what I'm thinking about right now, I think I'll
take a stab at replying to it. This is quite long, but hopefully
worthwhile -- I'd appreciate any comments on it.
> Oivind Revang <Oivind.Revang@bi.no> wrote in article
> <324E556D.672@bi.no>... As a former uncritical absorber of NLP
> material and now psychology student I want to point out some
> problems that occured to me while reviewing my NLP books again.
>
> First of all in my argument I'd like to point out the 3 types
> of knowledge that can be achieved.
>
> - Authorative: You are told that it is that way
> - Intuitive: You think that it is that way
> - Scientific Method: You try to observe if it is that way, and
> try to limit subjective input. In that way you get a
> unbiased opinion.
>
> It is clear to me that NLP is largely Intuitive, and for some
> very Authorative (Bandler said it, then it has to be true!).
> Even when there is a possibility to establish a correlation
> scientifically NLPers seem to prefer the highly subjective
> personal testimony. This makes it incredibly difficult to
> evaluate books and material.
Yes, of the three sources of knowledge you listed above, NLP
relies mostly on Authority and Intuition, both of which are
inherently fallible. NLP has also largely rejected the
Scientific Method, which I'll get into more later. Since I'm
also a student of Psychology at the moment, I'll add a few other
sources of knowledge from one of my classes.
- Common Sense: Highly fallible, but also the most common ;')
NLP, once understood, is mostly common sense (see "Using
Your Brain For A Change" by Bandler & Grinder for some
great examples of this), with a few non-intuitive ideas.
- Reasoning (Developing logical arguments): This is the primary
method that philosophers and other "soft" scientists use.
Since much of the theoretical basis of NLP comes from
philosophers and theorists (e.g. Bateson, Chomsky,
Vaihinger, etc...), this is where a lot of NLP's 'truth'
comes from. NLP holds up well under evaluation from this
perspective, but there are gaps in NLP's theory which is
a problem. The reason that there are gaps in the theory
of NLP is because the theory has never been explicitly
stated (as far as I know -- it's possible that it has
been in "NLP -- Vol. 1" by Dilts, et al. or in "The Roots
of NLP" also by Dilts, but I haven't read those books
yet). This doesn't mean that NLP is useless as a theory
-- it is remarkably coherent despite the fact that it has
never been thoroughly explained.
- Observation: This it the other big source of knowledge for
everyone from 'hard' scientists to philosophers. Since
much of NLP is about observation, it works well from this
perspective. The case studies and personal examples
presented in most NLP books are examples of observation.
NLP rejects the scientific method. Why? First, NLP doesn't ask
the question 'why?' Read "The Structure of Magic, vol. 1", you
won't find the word 'why' in the book. The meta-model does not
contain 'why?' 'Why' questions are not specific enough and are
almost always circular. Second, NLP has, up to the present,
relied primarily on Reasoning and Observation. These are the
first steps for any theory to go through before being subjected
to the scientific method. Eventually, there should be scientific
studies of NLP. There have been some done already (about 70 -
100 different studies, maybe less). Most of them were negative
about NLP (i.e. they did not support it), but almost all of them
were seriously flawed (e.g. used meta-model as the theory of NLP,
tested for eye movements vs. PRS, etc...) I'm still reviewing
all of the studies I can get my hands on, and I'll happily
discuss them in another post. Third, . . . Oh, there are a lot
more reasons, and this post is already going to be long enough as
it is -- I'll discuss them later!
> Second, NLP claims to be a holistic model of mind. What I see
> is a functional explanation of mind, one that says this is the
> way it is. I see no attempts to relate NLP findings to
> neuro-biological findings, or any attempts to even define very
> important terms in the model (like what is consciousness, the
> unconscious, altered states, etc...)
Yes, NLP is both holistic and functional. As I mentioned above,
there is no complete theory of NLP yet, so many of the terms
haven't been solidly defined (let's discuss these definitions on
this list!!)
Regarding neuro-biological findings and NLP, very little has been
written (see -- Anthony Robbins', "Awaken the Giant Within" for
his explanations of Neuro-Associative Conditioning (NAC), that
discusses some solid neuro-biology, especially the RAS).
However, in readings I've done, and discussions with biologists
and chemists, I haven't found any inherent contradictions between
NLP and the current state of neuro-biology. Lots more research
needs to be done though.
> It seems to me that NLP is a highly inductive model. Be aware
> of historical facts about inductive theories. Even if it
> produces results it is not necessarily right. Freud cured
> people with his psychoanalytic theory that now only sells as
> popular-psychology, and is largely seen as a hoax among
> renowned psychologists. When people thought the earth was flat
> they still got where they wanted through navigation, thir model
> of the world was wrong, but they still got the right results.
> Newtons model of gravity is still used in most calculations,
> but it is wrong, Einstein has a more accurate model. What I'm
> getting at is that NLPs success at treating people doesn't mean
> that it is right and that other models can't duplicate the
> results.
YES! NLP is an inductive model -- in fact it's one of the best
for studying human behavior. The Scientific Method is a
deductive model -- that's another reason why NLP rejects the
scientific method. The problem with science and the scientific
method is that it is deductive -- it limits itself to studying
one highly specific aspect of something. That is useful, but
what's becoming more and more important nowadays it how the
entire system works together. That's what Chaos theory is about
(for a good explanation of this, read Ian Malcolm's arguments in
the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton), and that's what
NLP is about -- how everything works together.
> Third, NLP authors are highly effective communicators (that's
> what they're trained in), and it's very easy to unintentionally
> use suggestive techniques, think about that the next time you
> read a book by Bandler and Grinder.
>
> Magnus
> - Only the fool quotes, the truly wise man gets quoted
Since NLP authors are highly effective communicators -- using NLP
techniques -- doesn't that imply that NLP techniques work?
One final thing to remember about NLP is that many of it's
techniques come from other places (e.g. Ericksonian hypnosis,
cybernetics, linguistics, behaviorism, humanism, etc...). The
techniques are just cleaned up and reexplained in NLP terms.
If you made it this far, thank you. I hope you enjoyed this, and
I'll happily expand on many of these topics if anyone has any
questions (and I have the time -- this has taken me a couple of
hours to write).
Until then,
Brent
***************
Brent D. Auble
aubleb@lafcol.lafayette.edu
References:
- Re: Concerns
- From: "Jan Willem Nicolay" <nicolay@noord.bart.nl>