Neurolinguistic programming (NLP)

[Barry]

And true to the spirit of NLP, if it works for you, do it: if it doesn’t work, stop doing it. We don’t have to get into any theoretical arguments or complicated research protocols.

This one worries me a bit, because in principle the same argument could be applied to GET for ME, and I suspect is behind the mindset of SW and Co. It very much depends on whether "if it doesn't work, stop doing it" might include the possibility of causing harm before realising the need to stop. Which is where scientific research might be relevant. How confident can you be, and if so why, that no harms might be caused?

 

[Barry]

And it is perfectly possible that there are techniques that, when used appropriately by a therapist who has a good empathetic understanding of people, may help. Even reading of techniques in self help books can help some of us to put a different perspective on things or give us techniques that help us cope and change. But that is all anecdotal, not scientific.

I am not questioning the need, or the possibility of change, or the possibility of particular methods helping to achieve change. Nor am I questioning the sincerity and experience of a particular practitioner, or how convincing they might be. That is not my point.

What I am questioning is the specific claims made about the specific techniques used in a particular brand of therapy/training called NLP. Can anyone point us to any well conducted clinical trial that demonstrates that NLP works? Is it more effective than CBT, ACT, meditation, counselling, reading Shakespeare, talking to an understanding friend...?

The answer is, I don't know.

There is a crisis in psychology research at the moment, as it is discovered that many experiments cannot be replicated. I don't think we really know whether any therapies work.

I fully agree with this.

 

[JemPD]

I'm a bit concerned that a vulnerable person who hasn't thought much so far about having such a voice, might create one and imbue it with certain characteristics (critical or not, loud or soft, fast or slow, coming from X) when it is suggested to them, out of willingness to take part in the process. How can you be sure that the therapist and patient aren't just inventing a voice and a narrative together? Worse things have happened, in the field of recovered memories for example, with horrific consequences. Introducing a patient to the concept of their inner voice and defining its characteristics together must come with a huge responsibility.

I agree that well meaning but manipulatory psychotherapy by therapists with an agenda, poor self awareness & poor ethics can be very dangerous, but i think thats the case in any field of therapy. 'inner voice' in some ways is an unfortunate term because it sounds a bit 'woowoo', but I think it's just meaning our own voice when we talk to ourselves. e.g. after walking into the door for the second time today... Outloud "agghh bl**dy hell!" then silently think to myself "for gods sake whats wrong with me today I'm so clumsy.... mmm well you do have ME & yr balance isnt good today so something...." - The latter being my so called 'inner voice'.



Some people have terribly self disparaging self talk... Thinking to themselves that they're useless etc, & I think changing that can be really helpful, but it's important not to let avoidance of unhelpful thoughts/selftalk/inner voice (whatever one wants to call it) turn into reality denial. (ie saying you feel fabulous when you dont 'al la' LP/some CBT

 

[Barry]

'inner voice' in some ways is an unfortunate term because it sounds a bit 'woowoo', but I think it's just meaning our own voice when we talk to ourselves. e.g. after walking into the door for the second time today... Outloud "agghh bl**dy hell!" then silently think to myself "for gods sake whats wrong with me today I'm so clumsy.... mmm well you do have ME & yr balance isnt good today so something...." - The latter being my so called 'inner voice'.

Not how I see it. Something much more internal, more akin - for me that is - to musing/deliberating/debating with oneself. Maybe I'm just exposing the fact I'm bonkers!

Some people have terribly self disparaging self talk... Thinking to themselves that they're useless etc, & I think changing that can be really helpful, but it's important not to let avoidance of unhelpful thoughts/selftalk/inner voice (whatever one wants to call it) turn into reality denial. (ie saying you feel fabulous when you dont 'al la' LP/some CBT

Agreed, terribly destructive and self-fulfilling if you don't turn it around. I also agree about the reality denial, but great care needed to ensure perceived realities are valid, and not themselves self-destructive.

 

[JemPD]

Not how I see it. Something much more internal, more akin - for me that is - to musing/deliberating/debating with oneself. Maybe I'm just exposing the fact I'm bonkers!

thats interesting, because for me thats exactly the same 'voice'

Agreed, terribly destructive and self-fulfilling if you don't turn it around. I also agree about the reality denial, but great care needed to ensure perceived realities are valid, and not themselves self-destructive.

agreed. Which is why, imo the CBT for ME al la Chalder, is so utterly crazy-making & abusive, convincing people that their reality is self destructive when it is in fact self protective..

 

[MErmaid]

I found NLP to be very helpful, when I was young and healthy, in removing emotional blocks that got in the way of achieving a goal I highly desired.

I view NLP as one tool in a large tool box. Just like we wouldn’t use a hammer, when simply a screwdriver is required. Why should we criticize a hammer for causing harm, just because some idiot pulled out the wrong tool? Hypotherapy never gave me any positive results, but I knew a few people who benefited immensely from curbing a lifetime nicotine habit.

If one has the strong desire and income to voluntarily try out different tools, then I don’t see the harm. If a tool works, then I embrace it; if a tool has no benefit then I stop using it.

The issue, as I see it, lies in the faulty assumption that one tool (drug, surgery, treatment, therapy, etc) works on one Dx all the time for everyone, in the same way. This is a ridiculous assumption no matter what the Dx! Most especially for ME, because we are still trying to wrap our arms around what ME is and is not.

I vote for blaming the idiot and not the tool.

 

[Valentijn]

If you read my article on the Lightning Process (totally unethical and abusive use of NLP) you will find that, in the empirical spirit of NLP, I have mentioned a few of the concepts used, and then given some directions about ways to test for yourself whether these ideas work for you.

But that is what scientific research does for us. Instead of relying on anecdotal evidence or case reports, the broader picture is looked at with certain methodologies in place for reliability and consistency. The impression I'm getting is that such scientific evidence shows that NLP is not helping anyone with anything - at least, no more than whatever placebo was used.

Whatever the scientists (and we all know about the ‘science’ used in psychiatry) prove or disprove, the tools of NLP enable me, as a therapist, to be able to teach my patients a few simple things they can do to minimise their emotional suffering...always checking that my suggestions do fit with their experience.

You're assuming that what you teach your patients is both learned by them and helpful to them. Again, the science suggests otherwise, and it's troubling that your response can be summed up as "don't trust science." I understand that the name of science can be badly abused by some parties, but I'd rather see a discussion of the specifics rather than a blanket dismissal of the entire concept of science, even if it's just science as it is applied in psychiatry.

In fact, the abuse of science in psychiatry is almost involving the creation of false-positives for pet theories, not multiple groups of researchers creating false-negatives to disprove someone else's theories. Scientists replicating the work of others and applying their theories is exactly what should be happening in science (assuming abusive methodology is not used), and isn't the bad science which is normally worthy of being dismissed.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Maybe we come back to Richard Feynman:

'Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.'

Narratives that 'make sense' of mental health problems can and do do irreparable harm and the patient and therapist may remain completely unaware of this. Any tool with the power for good is likely to have the power for harm. We do not understand the reasons for mental health problems and I think we have to face up to that.

 

[Barry]

But that is what scientific research does for us. Instead of relying on anecdotal evidence or case reports, the broader picture is looked at with certain methodologies in place for reliability and consistency. The impression I'm getting is that such scientific evidence shows that NLP is not helping anyone with anything - at least, no more than whatever placebo was used.

I agree fully with the notion of scientific research. I'm also convinced that the notion of reprogramming flawed behaviours is eminently sensible and feasible - I know this to be 100% valid. I know little of NLP, but I suspect it is some and some. I also suspect some of the existing research into NLP may itself have some bias, but would also doubt NLP could come out with a completely clean sheet - when a commercialised treatment is hyped up the way NLP is, I get very wary.

So I suspect the existing research as being biased, because I'm confident NLP is far from the complete dud the supposed research states it to be. Something is not right. We must be prepared to question all research, not just the bits we want to. But I would also like NLP to have real well run research into it, because I think that would really show and bring out its strengths and identify flaws. But participant selection and real open mindedness would be crucial, as well as a scrupulously well run trial.

I suppose one of the things that I see as both a strength and weakness with NLP, is how it is effectively an accrual of many things people have learnt in the process of sorting themselves out (a strength), but that these are applied without having the scientific rigour needed to ensure safe/effective usage for all comers (an obvious weakness). Personally I hink it could become a much more effective tool if sensibly trialled with no preconceptions, bias, etc.

 

[Barry]

Maybe we come back to Richard Feynman:

'Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.'

Narratives that 'make sense' of mental health problems can and do do irreparable harm and the patient and therapist may remain completely unaware of this. Any tool with the power for good is likely to have the power for harm. We do not understand the reasons for mental health problems and I think we have to face up to that.

There has to be a way to properly scientifically trial techniques which have the potential for good, so as to ensure the possibility of harm is minimised and known of (even if not fully understood). I know for sure, from many years of my younger life, the major benefits of reprogramming behaviours, and I recognise some of that in what @Nancy Blake speaks of. But I also am keenly aware of the possibility of harms, which is why I do strongly believe in sound trialling of NLP. And to those who say it has already been trialled and proved to be completely ineffective, I am therefore sure the trials were in some way biased, because I know it is very unlikely to completely ineffective. But a well run trial to show how effective it might be, and how safe or unsafe it might be ... that would be good. And of course it will be far from a one size fits all, far far from it.

 

[Barry]

I found NLP to be very helpful, when I was young and healthy, in removing emotional blocks that got in the way of achieving a goal I highly desired.

I view NLP as one tool in a large tool box. Just like we wouldn’t use a hammer, when simply a screwdriver is required. Why should we criticize a hammer for causing harm, just because some idiot pulled out the wrong tool? Hypotherapy never gave me any positive results, but I knew a few people who benefited immensely from curbing a lifetime nicotine habit.

If one has the strong desire and income to voluntarily try out different tools, then I don’t see the harm. If a tool works, then I embrace it; if a tool has no benefit then I stop using it.

The issue, as I see it, lies in the faulty assumption that one tool (drug, surgery, treatment, therapy, etc) works on one Dx all the time for everyone, in the same way. This is a ridiculous assumption no matter what the Dx! Most especially for ME, because we are still trying to wrap our arms around what ME is and is not.

I vote for blaming the idiot and not the tool.

Yes.

The one corollary I would say is that once someone seeks to apply such techniques on someone else, then there needs to be some scientific rigour to ensure safety.

 

[JemPD]

Narratives that 'make sense' of mental health problems

Apologies if i'm being dense @Jonathan Edwards? But I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you pls clarify/expand/give examples?

 

[large donner]

If you read my article on the Lightning Process (totally unethical and abusive use of NLP) you will find that, in the empirical spirit of NLP, I have mentioned a few of the concepts used, and then given some directions about ways to test for yourself whether these ideas work for you. Whatever the scientists (and we all know about the ‘science’ used in psychiatry) prove or disprove, the tools of NLP enable me, as a therapist, to be able to teach my patients a few simple things they can do to minimise their emotional suffering...always checking that my suggestions do fit with their experience.

I am old-fashioned enough to believe that mental health problems don’t just fall out of the sky, there is a narrative that makes sense of them, and if there isn’t, I send my clients to a doctor for a medical diagnosis.

And true to the spirit of NLP, if it works for you, do it: if it doesn’t work, stop doing it. We don’t have to get into any theoretical arguments or complicated research protocols.

Here’s an example of something you can try out for yourself: most, or all of us have a kind of internal background tape (‘inner dialogue’, ‘talking to ourselves’) and for most of us, it is pretty self-critical, and it may contribute to lack of self-confidence and low self-esteem. Check to see whether you are aware of such an inner voice. (Being extremely self-critical is a feature of depression. Changing this inner self-critical dialogue is therefore an effective way to help a depressed person.) If you do have this going on, NLP asks you to think about this voice in a practical way, (after first asking whether it is giving you some good advice that would be worth taking!): Which direction is it coming from? Is it loud or soft, slow or fast? If it seems to be coming from a particular direction, what happens if you move it to a different place? What happens if you make it louder...or softer? What happens if you speed it up - slow it down? What happens if you change its critical tone to the tone you would use to a puppy or a kitten? If you systematically try out each possibility, you may find one or two that would make this self-critical voice less oppressive, and lift your mood and feelings of confidence. If so, you now have a direct way to take control over how you feel about yourself. Testing NLP concepts in this way is how I would invite you to make your judgements about it.

Sounds like a big bunch of bullshit.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Apologies if i'm being dense @Jonathan Edwards? But I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you pls clarify/expand/give examples?

In my experience narratives that make sense of mental health problems (usually depression) tend to involve attributing cause to some previous events or interpersonal relations, almost inevitably implying some form of blame. That is pretty much what Freud did and it is now clear he just made things up as he went along. I have seen families wrecked by that.

I have no problem with attributing cause to current circumstances, like being lonely at college or having lost a partner or being unable to cope with work but narratives that dig into the past worry me. Parents of children with ME are constantly being made to feel guilt in this way.

 

[JemPD]

In my experience narratives that make sense of mental health problems (usually depression) tend to involve attributing cause to some previous events or interpersonal relations, almost inevitably implying some form of blame. That is pretty much what Freud did and it is now clear he just made things up as he went along. I have seen families wrecked by that.

I have no problem with attributing cause to current circumstances, like being lonely at college or having lost a partner or being unable to cope with work but narratives that dig into the past worry me. Parents of children with ME are constantly being made to feel guilt in this way.

Ah, yes i see what you mean, thank you for explaining. I detest Freudian theory, he did make it up as he went along and was basically a perv obsessed with sex iyam. But that doesn't mean that all ideas, philosophies, methods that have developed since him are automatically poor or harmful just because he was & his were often.

I think some narratives have to include the past because the past is making it's presence felt in the present - eg with flashbacks/intrusive memories of past trauma as in PTSD, or feeling worthless because of childhood sexual abuse & that worthlessness/hopelessness making the person depressed.

But the assumption that there must be a historic narrative, is poison. Even more so that the therapist's imagined/interpreted narrative is right, just because they're a therapist is utterly toxic.

 

[Barry]

I'm trying to track down a paper or two on trials that clearly show everything about NLP is unfounded, which people are telling me exist ... can someone point me to anything I would have access to please. I'd rather try and do what we claim to stand for here and be objective.

 

[TiredSam]

I'm trying to track down a paper or two on trials that clearly show everything about NLP is unfounded, which people are telling me exist ... can someone point me to anything I would have access to please. I'd rather try and do what we claim to stand for here and be objective.

Should we not first find a paper that clearly shows that anything about it has been objectively demonstrated? Until something more than anecdotal evidence is provided, there's nothing to disprove.

Surely those making the claims have the burden of proof? I've never heard anything above anecdotes, assertion and an appeal to plausibility put forward for NLP.

We've all been here before:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/guest-editorial-a-radical-care-pathway-for-me-cfs.1336/

Must I trot out my anecdote about NLP's founder, Richard Bandler again?

Murder trial because a prostitute was shot in the face with his gun. He got off by saying she was actually shot by his drug dealer:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/news/mn-26470_1_psychotherapist-richard-bandler

As dodgy as they come.

 

[Forbin]

I'm trying to track down a paper or two on trials that clearly show everything about NLP is unfounded, which people are telling me exist ... can someone point me to anything I would have access to please. I'd rather try and do what we claim to stand for here and be objective.

It may be that research on NLP is difficult to track down because most of it was done in the 1970's and 80's, prior to the internet.

This 1987 paper looked at 44 studies on NLP and found only 6 which were supportive. Of the six, four of those papers were graduate theses.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232447939_Research_Findings_on_Neurolinguistic_Programming_Nonsupportive_Data_or_an_Untestable_Theory

 

[Barry]

Should we not first find a paper that clearly shows that anything about it has been objectively demonstrated? Until something more than anecdotal evidence is provided, there's nothing to disprove.

Surely those making the claims have the burden of proof? I've never heard anything above anecdotes, assertion and an appeal to plausibility put forward for NLP.

If it existed that would be good, but there isn't; it is false logic to presume that must be because everything is bad. I don't expect you to believe me, but I'm confident that some aspects are valid (maps strongly onto techniques I used myself long time back), although I'm also sure that other aspects are dodgy.

I'm obviously not arguing in favour of applying treatment that I myself agree is at least partly flawed; that would be ridiculous. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying it is wrong for us to blindly presume something is totally flawed, and refuse to be open minded about the possibility some of it maybe does work. If you can separate the good from the bad, then you learn and move on.

Pseudo-science - yes I can agree with that, because NLP tries to sound scientific but isn't. The hard sell hyped up marketing is something of a tell.

We've all been here before:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/guest-editorial-a-radical-care-pathway-for-me-cfs.1336/

LP is bullocks, some of NLP undoubtedly is, but doesn't change my belief that some of NLP is probably sound. I'd like to understand how supposedly good science proves that something is all bad, if some of it is good.

Must I trot out my anecdote about NLP's founder, Richard Bandler again?

Murder trial because a prostitute was shot in the face with his gun. He got off by saying she was actually shot by his drug dealer:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/news/mn-26470_1_psychotherapist-richard-bandler

View attachment 2133

As dodgy as they come.

Agreed. But showing he was an aerosol does not of itself show everything is bad about NLP. From what I can see he basically trawled for everyone else's knowledge and experience, and bundled it up into his 'own' product. The odds that all of that knowledge and experience is duff seems very unlikely to me, though some/much of it will be. But of course that is obviously still a long way from having scientifically validated treatment. What worked for the original person cannot be guaranteed effective or safe for someone else.

I just wish that here, in S4ME, we could be open minded enough to consider there may be some good in something, rather than just cry 'bullshit' to the whole lot of it. Some of the stuff I did myself long time back, many times bit by bit, year upon year, you and others call bullshit, and I cannot prove to you otherwise because I'm not going to talk about such stuff here. But it means I know that we are not as open minded and objective about seeing the good as well as the bad, that people would like to claim here in S4ME, and that upsets me. It's not what we are supposed to be about. And it would be wrong of me to not speak out.

But I emphasise again: Just because I am arguing that some of what constitutes NLP is valid, does not at all mean I think NLP as a package should be applied without scientific validation. I think that anything which did end up with scientific validation, would be a subset/variation of NLP, because as it stands I doubt it would get such validation even if it was properly trialled - but I do believe some aspects of it would prove valid components in something that could be validated.

 

[Invisible Woman]

I can see what you're saying here @Barry. In normal circumstances, for healthy, consenting and fully informed adults, if you want to give something a try that may help and is very unlikely to harm - why not?

However, when it comes to healthcare and dealing with people who are vulnerable to further harm, I sincerely believe that treatments need to be properly scientifically researched.

If I may draw a parallel to exercise as a treatment -I can easily see why the uneducated might think that exercise can't harm, when a few basic blood tests look normal. There was a time when I thought that myself. When I was newly ill, I thought it would help and in the absence of any real evidence for or against, I gave it a go. I now know it can harm, but it's too late the damage has been done.

We've all heard anecdotes of treatments that work really well for some but harm others. The only way we can know if someone is likely to be a "responder" or whether a treatment might be suitable is having properly designed, rigourous, scientific trials.

Otherwise, it's very much a case of tryer beware. As a patient group I sincerely believe it is our duty to point that out.