Home > Science and Skepticism > Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) NLP is a set of techniques and ideas that, in essence, aid self-development and enable people to relate better to other people around them. Some ideas that NLP practitioners teach are: Understanding body language Using particular word constructs in order to influence other people Understanding our own use of language in order to get a better understanding of our state of mind These techniques undoubtedly work. Had the author taken the trouble to practice some NLP techniques he would have found this out. Skeptics dismiss NLP as hocus-pocus, which is not surprising as they also dismiss hypnosis. I’ll deal with hypnosis later, but the skeptic dictionary entry for NLP is interesting as it encapsulates all the fuzzy thinking and devious arguing techniques that skeptics employ, so I’m going to give a blow-by-blow account of the entry. In the first paragraph, he points out what he supposes is a dispute among NLP practitioners. The intention is to set up a feeling that these are people with no integrity. The intention, revealed later, is to implant the suggestion that these are people who are into it for the money only. Of course there is marketing hype associated with NLP. In fact, NLP practitioners say that using NLP techniques they are able to increase your powers of persuasion, so it is hardly surprising that they practise what they preach. I am not suggesting that this is an admirable trait; I am simply stating a fact. In the second paragraph he intends to cast the idea of more hocus-pocus. “It has something for everybody”. Well, so does better reading skills or better speaking skills. NLP is concerned with understanding the self and with understanding others so the claim, in this context, is hardly controversial. Further on, “What is NLP?”, we get more didactic interpretation of what the author thinks NLP is. Now NLP assumes some basic ideas: the idea of a conscious and unconscious mind; that we are influenced by our unconscious minds; that hypnosis is a way of accessing the unconscious mind, etc. The author, I think, would not accept any of these assumptions. The real issue with this superficial ‘analysis’ is that rather than taking the trouble to understand NLP, he takes pot shots at phrases used. For instance, the phrase "There is no such thing as failure. There is only feedback." is a statement used by NLP practitioners. The idea here is that if you are learning then an unsuccessful attempt can teach you as much as a successful attempt – you know what doesn’t work. But the author didn’t take the trouble to understand the context – it is easier to take pot shots. Further on he sheds doubt on non-verbal communication, a common theme among skeptics. The main reason we should be dubious about non-verbal communication, apparently, is that it is ambiguous. Well, so is verbal language. It has to be looked at in context. The issue is ‘Does it work?’ My own experience is that it does work very successfully. Had the author bothered to learn some basic body language reading skills, he would be able to verify this himself but he is not really interested in science (as in performing an experiment). He finishes up with some personal attacks on NLP practitioners, a technique skeptics call ad homen attacks. The real issue is that none of these criticisms are based in the slightest on any kind of science. The author has not talked to NLP practitioners or attended an NLP training session. Advocates of NLP claim that Derren Brown uses these techniques widely. Personally, I think sometimes he does and sometimes he uses other techniques, but any real study of NLP would have to examine it at work. Something that the author has not bothered to do. What is even more damning about skeptics in general is that this web site, and this web page, is widely referenced as being solid arguments against NLP and other such practices. Do the people who reference these sites actually bother reading what they say? This is no better than mud-slinging rumour mongering. Passing on unsubstantiated views. It is not science and has nothing to do with real science. Later on, I’ll deal with the skeptic ‘criticism’ (if I can use this term for what is really just name calling) of hypnosis.