NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) is a set of techniques that bills itself as "scientific" and claims to transform a person's thoughts, emotions and behaviour in a short space of time. Plenty of NLP courses out there flaunt the words "fast" and "high-impact", and even liken NLP to an operating manual for the brain. Of course, a slogan like that is appealing, because people always prefer simple, clear information — even to a complicated, ambiguous reality.
So what does an NLP course actually do? Is it science? As a psychology outreach group, TreeholeHK is going to take it apart for everyone.
What is NLP?
NLP is a pseudoscience that claims to be a "science" studying human emotion and behaviour, made up of three parts: the nervous system (Neuro), language (Linguistic) and programming (Programming). NLP "doctrine" holds that, once you understand how the nervous system and language work, you can write a "programme" much like a computer, issue an "instruction", and make the brain change accordingly. NLP may well have some uses, but when it passes itself off as science, the field of psychology generally regards NLP as a pseudoscience (Pseudoscience), because:
- NLP's understanding of the brain conflicts with modern research — in particular, likening the human mind to a computer program that can be changed by "issuing an instruction" is a serious overreach.
- NLP has no scientific research (or only a small amount of contested research) supporting its effectiveness
- and its development shows no inclination to subject itself to the scrutiny of empirical research (Empirical Research).
NLP is not psychology, nor is it science
The origins of NLP
NLP originated with the psychology graduate Richard Bandler and the linguist John Grinder, who, dissatisfied with the process of conventional psychotherapy, set out to model several very well-known psychologists, including Milton Hyland Erickson, Virginia Satir and Fritz Pearls. NLP's early development did, in fact, have academic backing (Strut et al., 2012). But any psychological theory, to win recognition from psychologists, has to pass the test of controlled trials (Controlled Tried), and under rigorous scientific scrutiny NLP has been unable to demonstrate its effectiveness — or its effectiveness is very limited (Devilly, 2005).
For a psychologist, or any qualified researcher, when the results of research do not support one's own theory, the normal practice is to revise that theory. The NLP camp, however, has not done this. Instead it has closed its doors and built its own little car, going on to develop "theories" within its own small circle, along with all manner of pay-to-play systems for obtaining a "certificate", and shamelessly trading on the name of "psychology" to drum up business. This is, beyond doubt, a disgraceful thing to do: because legitimate psychology is supported by scientific research, and that scientific research is also the basis of the public's confidence in psychology. The problem is that NLP has never earned scientific support by the same standard, yet it promotes itself under the banner of "psychology" — which is plainly stealing society's trust in psychology. It is rather like a shop that has never been awarded the "Q Mark" certification, yet sticks a "Q Mark" logo up on its premises all the same.
What actually counts as psychology?
But someone might say: "Learning NLP really has been useful to me!" Please don't get the wrong idea — things that are non-scientific (Non- Scientifc) are not necessarily useless.
As we go through life, whether or not we have studied psychology, we still draw inferences and form analyses about other people's mental states and behaviour. Just as you might say a certain boss is unreasonable and that you have to be careful what you say to him — this understanding is not science, yet it can help you survive in the workplace.
NLP, in fact, is just like the series of personal observations described above. There is nothing wrong with offering personal observations and analyses about people's psychology; as long as these observations are confirmed by rigorous scientific research, they will be taken up by the field of psychology. To give an example: suppose you believe that "long-distance relationships harm couples", and you can gather a large body of research on couples tracking the emotional changes before and after they entered long-distance relationships, and the data really does bear this out — then "long-distance relationships harm couples" becomes a theory accepted by psychology.
Of course, in practice it is not that simple, because other psychologists will question and critique your research. Going from a hypothesis (Hypothsis) to a theory broadly accepted by the field of psychology is a long and rigorous process, but that is precisely where the value of psychological knowledge lies. NLP has not gone through this process — yet if it nonetheless calls itself psychology, then it is misleading people.
Research on the effectiveness of NLP
The NLP camp claims to be scientific on the one hand, yet on the other has not carried out enough empirical research (Empirical Research). Worse still, the field of psychology has actually produced a fair amount of research pointing out that NLP's usefulness may be minimal. A systematic review by Strut and colleagues (2012) found no evidence that NLP improves mental health; research by Krugman and colleagues (1985) found that using NLP to deal with anxiety was no different from simply waiting for an hour. And one psychology professor put it bluntly (Roderique-Davies, 2009): "There is still, after three decades of development, no credible evidence supporting NLP's theory." (original text) When NLP wraps itself in terms like "neuro", it can mislead people into thinking it is the same thing as neuroscience (Neuroscience); in substance, from a scientific standpoint NLP is simply a series of guesses about how the human mind works — and, more likely than not, inaccurate guesses.
The patchy quality of NLP course "instructors"
Beyond its shortcomings in academic theory, NLP's professional culture in Hong Kong is also rather poor. Some courses out there claim that, simply by paying, a person with zero grounding in psychology can "obtain certification" within two or three months and go on to treat other people's psychological problems, or even mental illness — which is, beyond doubt, deeply irresponsible. Other NLP instructors run their operations like a cult, cultivating a guru-like image to lure people into their following.
I do not deny that NLP contains some practical techniques and can deliver part of the effect it claims. But if you are planning to take an NLP course, I think you need to be clear about what you are actually learning and to manage your expectations. To begin with, you need to know that what you are learning is not psychology. What is more, psychological research indicates that its usefulness may be very, very limited — and feeling good after learning NLP may be nothing more than the placebo effect (Placebo Effect).
References
Devilly, G. J. (2005). Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(6), 437-445.
Sturt, J., Ali, S., Robertson, W., Metcalfe, D., Grove, A., Bourne, C., & Bridle, C. (2012). Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes. British Journal of General Practice, 62(604), e757-e764.
Krugman, M., Kirsch, I., Wickless, C., Milling, L., Golicz, H., & Toth, A. (1985). Neuro-linguistic programming treatment for anxiety: magic or myth?. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 53(4), 526.
Roderique-Davies, G. (2009). Neuro-linguistic programming: cargo cult psychology. Journal of applied research in higher education, 1(2), 58-63.
Comments
No comments yet — share your thoughts.