IntroductionThis example of behaviour which is apparently now regarded as acceptable amongst academics was brought to my notice by one of the "amateur" critics of "NLP" who troll the Internet. The original reference was to the book Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain (1999), edited by Professor Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh. Notes:1. References to the FoNLP (field of NLP) indicate the combination of NLP itself - a specific modelling technique - plus the rest of the NLP-related techniques, applications and concepts plus training in NLP and/or the related techniques. *** The Short Version ***Critic(s): Critical Material: Nature of criticism: Original/derivative: Flaw(s): The authors apparently came across some "information" about whatever it is they thought of as "NLP", which they then "recycled" without - it seems - making even the slightest effort to check the accuracy of that information. As a consequence they made a right "dog's dinner" of the material under discussion and arguably took a metaphorical axe to their credibility as commentators on the subject of the authentic field of NLP (FoNLP). For example:
Conclusions: Taken at face value, the comments by Della Sala and Beyerstein seem to demonstrate a complete lack of interest in doing the kind of background research that might have allowed them to offer an informed/balanced assessment of the FOnLP. In fact, like every academic assessment of NLP that I've come across so far, it seems that these writers (presumably intelligent and highly competent, under normal circumstances), simply fall to pieces, so to speak, when faced with the subject of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. This raises, yet again, the fundamental question: If the FoNLP is really so riddled with faults, as many academic psychologist claim, why do they find it necessary to write such incompetent assessments as this? Why not simply (a) do the research needed to find out what they are talking about, and (b) produce the evidence to support their claims? Alternatively, if they do not care to put in the time and effort needed to produce accurate appraisals, why sacrifice their credibility by writing twaddle? Do they, perhaps, trust that no one else will look at their work with sufficient knowledge and care to spot the numerous faults? Or is it simply taken as read that even if they spot the faults, no one inside academia will dare point out that the "emperors" are all buck naked as far as the FoNLP is concerned? Personally I've no idea how things have things have reached their current state. So if anyone reading this FAQ thinks they know, I'd really like to hear your explanation. *** End of Short Version ****** 'Director's Cut' ***OverviewDella Sala and Beyerstein make a seies of statements/allegations which are, by turns, inaccurate or too vague to be properly addressed. In the latter part of this FAQ I will quote and comment on specific points made by the authors. Just before I do so, I will set out the basic flow of the points so that you can understand the general nature of the various points, and how the authors try to develop their allegations. Starting as they mean to go on, the authors first give an incorrect information about the starting date, and the origins of "NLP" (i.e. at no time do they address genuine NLP). This seques into a brief, and of course inaccurate description of the PRS concept. As though determined to conform to a stereotypically confused account of "NLP", the authors then move on to quotes from non-authoritative sources. For some people that might look like an almost ridiculously harsh precis of Della Sala and Beyerstein's comments. Surely no professor at a top class university is going to make such basic errors, are they? NLP - According to Della Sala and BeyersteinBeginningsOur two professors commence their trip to fantasy land thus: As the philosopher Dale Beyerstein has observed, 'nonsense often piggy-backs on reliable knowledge'. The personal enhancement method called Neurolinguistic [sic] Programming (NLP) is a case in point. It began with some now outmoded information from legitimate psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience that even most experts accepted back in the 1960's, when NLP first arrived on the scene. The nice thing about real science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is that the former eventually corrects its mistakes as new discoveries emerge. NLP remains mired in the past or the never-was." Notice the nifty footwork here: "NLP" is said to have started with a legitimate basis in psychology, linguistics and neuroscience (is there a touch of "see how fair we're being?", here?). But then "we scientists" discovered new and different things - and moved on - but NLP didn't. A minor note of approval swiftly followed by a devastating pull on the rug and there, base over apex, went "NLP". Or did it? No, it didn't. Della Sala and Beyerstein's rug is as illusory as their knowledge of the authentic FoNLP.
Left brain/Right brainThe next paragraph also starts with a piece of misinformation. And interest occurance in a book that is allegedly intended to bust a few "Mind Myths": "Not surprisingly, assumed but now discredited left-brain/right-brain differences top the list of NLP's dubious roots." Excuse me, but didn't the authors just say that "NLP" began with "information that even most experts accepted back in the 1960's"? So where did these "dubious roots" come from all of a sudden? But that isn't really relevant. Because the authors seem to be implying that ideas about the "left brain" and the "right brain" still rank highly amongst NLP-related concepts. But where does this misinformation come from? Who says the concept ever topped any NLP-related list? As with almost every allegation the authors fail to give any reference at all, so we have no idea what they are basing their allegations on. Again, this seems like a highly questionable practice in a book that has any pretentions to being scientific. Preferred Representational SystemsThe authors now make their biggest mistake, in my opinion, by addressing the subject of "Primary Representational Systems. This is a "rock" on which many a "boat" criticising the FoNLP has foundered: "NLP promoters claim that each of us has a Primary Representational System (PRS), a tendency to think in specific modes: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory or gustatory. A person's PRS can supposedly be exposed by observing the kinds of words and metaphors he or she tends to use in everyday conversation (e.g., 'I see what you mean,' as opposed to 'I hear what you are saying'). ... NLP therapists claim they can achieve better rapport with clients, and cure them more successfully, if they address them with the appropriate PRS. " One cannot help being reminded here of the earlier quote from Dale Beyerstein: 'nonsense often piggy-backs on reliable knowledge'. Because that is certainly what is going on here. Firstly we have the mysterious reference to "NLP promoters". Who, specifically is being referred to here? Are they an authority on the FoNLP (i.e. Bandler or Grinder), or just someone who has, for example, written an article on the subject? This is another trick frequently used by critics of the FoNLP - a trick which would be quickly squelched if they tried it on with their colleagues. Secondly it is by no means clear whether Della Sala and Beyerstein understood what Bandler and Grinder claim for the representational systems. Though I may be mistakebn, it reads to me as though our authors think that Bandler and Grinder were suggesting that people thought in one modality at a time. If that is the case they are sadly mistaken. This is how one of the co-creators explained it back in 1978: 'Our claim is that you are using all systems all of the time. In a particular context you will be aware of one system more than another. I assume that when you play athletics or make love, you have a lot of kinesthetic sensitivity. When you are reading or watching a movie, you have a lot of visual consciousness. You can shift from one to the other. There are contextual markers that allow you to shift from one strategy to another and use different sequences. There's nothing forced about that.' Eye MovementsAnother subject that trips up msany critics, often, it seems, because they don't bother to do the necessary background reading, is the relationship between eye movements and the representational systems. Thus this preliminary comment: NLP's quirky ideas about the significance of the directionality of one's eye movements also play a prominent role in their diagnoses and treatment of problems. NLPers are not doctors or therapists, though quite a few of them may use NLP-related techniques in the course of their work as doctors/therapists. What NLP-related techniques cannot be used for is "diagniosis" or "treatment" in any medical sense. Likewise it is highly misleading to say that "the directionality of one's eye movements also play a prominent role" in making diagnoses or solving problems. Tracking a sequence of eye movement (known as a strategy) takes quite a great deal of skill, developed through practise and practical experience. Who said That?In case you were wondering, we are still only on the third paragraph of Della Sala and Beyerstein's criticism of "NLP", which they round off by returning to an earlier point: NLPs [sic] advertising makes extraordinary claims, such as instant cures for phobias or miraculously quick and easy acquisition of new abilities, with no credible research to back them up. But this is merely another trick to allow the authors to quote anything they like as though it were an authoritative pronouncement. There is no central or overarching organization within the NLP community, so the label "NLPs advertising" is entirely meaningless. The co-creators of the FoNLP have not been in the habit of claiming anything they couldn't back up with appropriate actions - such as Bandler's demonstrations of three phobia cures in under 30 minutes (each), as witnessed and videoed by members of the faculty of Marshall University in West Virginia. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge neither Bandler nor Grinder has ever seriously claimed that they could perform miracles. Which is possibly why these authors aren't quoting Bandler and Grinder's own words? Instead we get a rather colourful quote - with no attribution: Changing the quality of your life is the focus of NLP. You will deal with - vanquish - anything that may be holding you back from utilizing the force that can instantly change your life. Empower yourself with the keys to extraordinary achievement. Discover within yourself the force that can change everything." In fact this was written by someone called Steve Boyley, a Canadian NLP Trainer who is widely respected and who has a very good reputation for the quality of his training seminars. But he has not been involved as a creator or developer of NLP or the FoNLP, and all his qualifications do not make him in any sense an official spokesman for the NLP community or the co-creators of the FoNLP. The quote is a red herring, and nothing more. Evidence? What Evidence?The next quote again demonstrates the authors' tendency to make essentially meaningless claims: A variety of fair-minded critics have looked at the evidence for NLP's vaunted effectiveness and found it wanting. This looks like the sort of thing Dr Heap might have written, but since no reference is provided I guess we'll never know. What we can observe, however, is the complete lack of precision in the statement:
Hail, Hail, the NRCIt may be, of course, that Della Sala and Beyerstein imagined that their comments on the NRC investigation of "NLP" would answer all of these questions. In fact, however, this is simply the straw which breaks Della Sala and Beyerstein's backs. NLP became one of several objects of scrutiny when the U.S. Congress appealed to the National Research Council (NRC) to advise it as to which performance-enhancement methods could or could not live up to the advertising promoters were using to pitch their wares to the armed services and numerous government agencies. The NRC struck a panel of eminent psychologists and neuroscientists to look into into heavily promoted products that ranged from NLP and various 'positive thinking' and 'brainstorming' courses to sleep learning devices, biofeedback, subliminal audiotapes (containing hidden but supposedly effective self-help messages that are impossible to hear), various 'memory boosters', and even courses offering to develop workers' powers of ESP (extrasensory perception). The NRC panel first combed the world's scientific literature to look for (a) evidence that the underlying rational for each of these self-improvement products was based on sound psychological and neurological data, and (b) evidence from properly-conducted outcome tests to support claims that these expensive interventions really work. Just to be sure they had not missed anything, the NRC panel invited the promoters of the various performance enhancement products to supply them with any supporting evidence that might have been missed in their review of the scientific literature - virtually none was forthcoming. The panel even visited the offices of most of the promoters to get a feel for their scientific acumen. None, including NLP, was able to convince the NRC's assessors that their products were a sound buy for improving worker efficiency or well-being. It may not look like it, but this apparent description of the NRC study actually destroys the credibility of the authors' previous criticism of the PRS concept. And here's why: In a nutshell, either Della Sala, Beyerstein or both men did read the Druckman and Swets report on the NRC's activities regarding "NLP" - or they didn't. A trusting reader who has no knowledge of the Druckman and Swets report, published over 20 years ago, might understandably be lulled into thinking that Della Sala and Beyerstein did indeed read the report. Someone who had themselves read the report, even if they knew very little about the FoNLP, might already be more cautious. For example, Della Sala only mention "a panel", whereas in fact there was a committee of 15 people, most of them professors of psychology, plus one administrative secretary. These 15 people were then divided across 10 subcommittees, there being 5 people in the Subcommittee on Influence, which looked into "neurolinguistic programming" [sic]. But there's another, much more important, piece of information in the actual report on the subcommittee's work, and in particular in regard to an interview with Richard Bandler in 1986. Thus the report states that: "PRS is prominently placed in Frogs into Princes (Stevens [sic], 1979) and The Structure of Magic (Bandler and Grinder, 1975), two early NLP descriptions [sic]. At a meeting with Richard Bandler in Santa Cruz, California, on July 9, 1986, the influence subcommittee (see Appendix C) was informed that PRS was no longer considered an important component [of NLP]. He [Bandler] said that NLP had been revised, and he provided the committee with two books, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume 1, The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience (Dilts et al., 1980) and Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Dilts, 1983). Now the Druckman and Swets report relies to a large extent on the Sharpley reviews (1984, 1987), including most if not all of Sharpley's many errors. Either way, Della Sala and Beyerstein clearly did not, for whatever reason, have a clear understanding of NLP-related ideas, even in regard to this one, pretty minor respect. Why, then, should we trust them to accurately report on any other aspect of the subject? Have Gun, Shoot FootNot to put too fine a point on it, the next claim blows away any lingering possibility that the authors have done their homework. "In the May 2001 edition of The Training Journal, which vets the sorts of extravagent training programmes touted to industry and Government, Garry Platt showed in detail how weak the corroborative evidence for NLP is." To be blunt, this is itself yet more myth making.
And PenultimatelyDella Sala and Beyerstein then quote a portion of Platt's article, which consists mainly of a quote from Dr. Michael Heap: In Platt's article, he quotes the noted British psychologist and sceptic, Dr. Michael Heap, from the Sheffield Health Authority, who has published extensive critiques of NLP. He [Heap] can find virtually no substantive evidence to support thge claims made for NLP, and writes: What Della Sala and Beyerstein did not know was that Platt's use of Heap's material was based on little more than his somewhat naive belief that anything the Principal Clinical Psychologist for the Sheffield Health Authority said about "NLP" must be right. Nor, it seems, did they realize that Dr Heap's "extensive critiques of NLP [sic]" were little more than versions of a presentation given in 1987. In fact both Dr Heap and Robert Todd Carroll turn out to be totally unequipped to provide any reliable evidence about genuine NLP-related concepts and techniques. See: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/response.html, and respectively for details of the "evidence" supplied by Heap and Carroll respectively. The Bottom LineAnd finally: "The bottom line: When it comes to self improvement, specific training in task-relevant skills, hard work, practice, and attention to detail, seem to be the only reliable routes to success. So sayeth the NRC."
So far I believe we can safely say that neither Bandler nor Grinder would disagree. Though many non-authoritative members of the NLP community might think otherwise. But:
If Della Sala and Beyerstein had followed that philosophy this commentary might never have been needed. Once again, as in all the studies of academic criticisms addressed on this web site, we are faced with a simple question: Why do academics who have, at best, only a passing knowledge of the field of NLP, and who make no apparent effort to become better informed, nevertheless insist on launching these vacuous assaults against whatever they think "NLP" is? If you have a solution to this mystery we'd love to hear from you.
|
Andy Bradbury can be contacted at: bradburyac@hotmail.com