I’ve been surreptitiously undermining the faith of people around me for years. I think it’s a delightful thing to do. Here is a collection of techniques explained in terms of NLP that I find to be particularly effective.
Embedded command: Enjoy your life
[Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a way of listening to how people speak, to understand the way they structure thoughts, which can be used to develop influence over them. It’s used in psychotherapy, sports psychology and sales a lot]
But is it ethically responsible to shift someone’s beliefs?
Well, yes. Provided you aren’t supplanting their beliefs with your own. You should be igniting within them a healthy curiosity tempered with a dose of skepticism. Good atheists should live in a comfortable state of not knowing.
Anyway, forget the moral dilemma, this blog isn’t about why, it’s about how.
Rapport: The art of matching, pacing and leading:
Rapport is incredibly important. You want to have a discussion, not a debate. You want this person to like you, to look up to you, because people must feel safe before they’ll make themselves (and their beliefs) vulnerable. Be an example of someone they’d want to be – and they’ll make an effort to change.
Match where they’re at by using similar vocabulary, match their posture and tone, and make it clear how similar your moral values are.
Then pace them through their current experience, by discussing their current beliefs, and use what I’d call ‘meta-discussion’ – discussing the discussion you’re currently having. What do you believe about god? How did you come to believe that? What is it like when you’re discussing it with people?
Then, lead by example: Demonstrate that you are willing to adjust your beliefs. Once you’ve gained their admiration, they will seek your approval by following suit and adjusting theirs. If you’re just trying to get someone to believe what you do, then they’ll match that and try to get you to believe them.
Remember, you aren’t indoctrinating new beliefs, you’re demonstrating how to think critically about the world. Be an example of the positive effects of critical reasoning.
Anchoring
Keep the discussion lighthearted and funny. Make them feel smart. Make them laugh. Maintain friendly amounts of physical contact, tapping them or nudging them when you’re making funny points. Challenging them jovially when they say something silly. Be a mate.
Their brain is creating an association for when they consider atheism, and anchored to that memory there should be strong, positive emotions: Comfort, fun, laughter, and most importantly: Friendship. One of the strongest mental benefits that religions offer are strong social ties – you’ve got to match that.
As you peel back the layers of structure to their belief, they will imagine telling their parents, or wonder whether they’ll lose their friends, how it will feel to discuss death and the concept of nothingness… If you make them feel good, the content of those thoughts will fade and the ‘anchored’ positive association will remain.
You want them to carry those jovial feelings through to when they eventually discuss it with another person of their faith – ‘cos if they go home and say “Mum, Dad, we’ve got to talk” they’re in trouble. You want them to behave as if it’s a cheerful non-event: “Oh that? I don’t believe that stuff any more”
Modelling
I can see god with my special glasses
Set up hypothetical situations where they might try new beliefs on for size. Ask them questions like: If you were and atheist, how would you feel about Catholicism? What kind of person would you be if you were Hindu? Ever wondered what it’s like to be a Muslim woman in Saudia Arabia?
The practice of using their imagination to ‘model’ the experiences of other faiths will show them that their beliefs are actually conscious choices that they are making from moment to moment. That experience will tell them that they are capable of doing and believing much more than they think. Just give them the chance.
Again – demonstrate how this is done by starting out yourself, and keep it casual and conversational: ‘I recon if I were a woman in Saudi Arabia, so long as I didn’t know much about the western world, I’d probably think I lived a pretty charmed life. But as soon as I knew about the west, I’d get pretty upset.’
Hypnotic Language
Weave poetry with your words, use long sentences that never seem to be finishing a thought as much as starting another one that involves speaking about speaking, getting caught in thought again, and again before that, talking about wondering how all this happened, as you bury simple messages into the words like curious minds are strong when they think critically and ask questions.
The confusing floods of information will cause the conscious mind to shut down its critical filter, letting the words flow in. Let their subconscious mind swim through the language and search for meaning. Keep your voice calming, deep and melodious. Watch their eyes, if they become heavy or bleary as if they’re falling asleep, you’re doing it right. Encourage feelings of relaxation and contentment.
Embedded Commands
Encourage them to become introspective
Embedding commands is the practice of subtly emphasizing parts of sentences as commands for the subconscious to feel calm or be curious. Even if they’re phrased in the negative (“I know you wouldn’t even consider the possibility…”) they can have a profound effect. They demand that the person must associate with the experience of doing whatever it is that you command.
That might sound like a grand claim, but consider the suggestion ‘don’t feel tired’ and experience how it affects you, even incredibly subtly, when compared to the command ‘be alive’.
Make sure that the commands are vague enough that the listener can attach their own meaning, but they’re still in line with your goal of promoting reason and logic.
Respect their ‘map of the world’
Be genuinely fascinated with their world-view (this is also essential for rapport). Ask about their religious experiences – what’s happening at the their place of worship, what it looks like, sounds like and smells like. If you’re serious about them, demonstrate that. Visit their place of worship with them, immerse yourself in the experience of believing what they do. You will learn something interesting.
And…
Be aware of people’s tendency to externalize failure and internalize success. A person who is down on their luck is predisposed to perceive agency in the world, in the form of a mysteriously annoying deity that got them fired or burnt their house. People who are living a bored life of relative luxury and in the throes of an existential crisis are much more receptive to hearing that they have control over their own world.
Remember, you’re interested in how they structure belief in their mind. That is the essence of what you’re learning and adjusting. Understand how they believe one thing, and you’ll have the blueprint for giving them new ways to think.
What I’m trying to say is this: Don’t get stuck in content, sharing facts and figures with them, unless they legitimately believe that god exists because it’s statistically likely. It isn’t. Those people don’t exist. If someone tells you ‘I think it’s unlikely that all this just happened by accident’ – then they are sharing the content of their belief – the rationalization that they constructed to protect their faith. That is the symptom, not the cause. You won’t adjust that person’s belief by describing what a supernova is, or how proteins fold; and the psychological ‘backfire effect‘ will probably cause them to use your diatribe to justify their beliefs.
The structure of belief is typically something like: My parents told me this, it offered me a group to fit into and makes me feel good inside, so I choose to believe it.
Deal with that.
Atheism is not a religion… it’s strange to convert people to a non-religion. But, if you can… congratulations.
It’s strange? ANd what religion do you believe in? Who are you to judge the ways of others?
This person who wrote this is trying to persuade other people to change into what they beleive. Oh my god! when I see them knocking at my doors with a smile and bag full of leaflets I tell them ‘look I respect your beleif but I have my right to my own belief’. So now out of desperation they are using NLP skills which is unethical!!
Thank God I have not come from a family who beleive in those ‘convertor beleif religions’. Thank God for my Ancient Hinduism it accept any one and any beleif so you have no such urge to go around to convert every one to beleive what you beleive!!
Please do not use NLP for wrong purpose.
Neuro-linguistic programming is as pseudso-scientific as it sounds:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfbw8nz3_1hqgpsbf7
http://knol.google.com/k/neurolinguistic-programming#
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdwl8h_characteristics-of-pseudoscience_tech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AZQPNyGyQ
It failed testing in the 1980s, it is used as an archetypical example of pseudo-science at university level, and it is regarded as a new age religion in the sociology of religion.
Its like scientology. Its a cult and a scam.
I do agree, it is awkwardly pseudo-scientific, but I would suggest to you that almost all of psychotherapy is pseudo-scientific, with the rare exception of CBT.
The difficulty with NLP’s scientific validity is that it’s so poorly regulated that almost anything passes as NLP. There are a few dodgy practitioners, and a few vociferous opponents who hunt around the internet for the term and rail against it with exceptional emotion and limited charm. You might well fall into that category.
It did fail testing, probably in the 1980′s and many times since then, but not because it doesn’t work, but more because the claims it makes are difficult to test. That’s what makes it very close to pseudo-scientific, the unfalsifiability.
But really indeed – a cult? I don’t even know where to begin with that strange claim. Uh, are people indoctrinated and geographically and socially isolated? Are there in-group, out-group distinctions made? Is it something you can ‘join’ and then struggle to ‘leave’? No, my friend – you are just letting your fingers get a little carried away with their typing. Engage your mind.
Accuse it of being sneakily pseudo-scientific, then give examples of how the claims in THIS BLOG wouldn’t work or could be tested and how it would fail, and you might win. Call it a cult and you demonstrate how little you understand about either NLP or the classification criteria for a cult.
I’m referring to the evidence quoted; peer reviewed papers and books.
You seem to be leaning on an outdated opinion of psychology..
Most of psychology refers to independent evidence and does not agree on reality by committee alone, ride on the coattails of neuroscience or linguistics, and does not follow suit from scientology by using distorted terms from neurology. There is nothing in properly researched psychology that concocts pseudo-scientific names such as neuro-linguistic programming.
A few bad apples? Look at the videos again. Thats Bandler and Grinder claiming every pseudo-scientific scam from the children are powerhouse myths, to left right brain mythology, to distinctly hubbardesque computer brain metaphors.
Neuro-linguistic programming has grown because it is a cult, and it continues to be more new age as each decade passes. Its the best example of modern new age pseudo-science on the planet.
Dave, mate – are you an atheist, or do you blog about NLP and how it doesn’t work?
I’m curious about what causes you to seek out a blog about atheism and NLP and reply with admirable dedication against the scientific validity of NLP – in a blog that makes no claims about the scientific validity of NLP. I have only anecdotal personal indications that suggest that it works. I’ve laid out how I think it works, and explained why.
I’m interested, because as far as fanatical fervor goes, it seems like it’s your folk and Evangelical Christians that actively seek out dissenting opinion and rail against it.
Admittedly I have the same fanatical fervor against religion – because I can see how it damages people’s lives, it restricts my own, and it is retarding the progress of the human race. It’s a vestigial aberration that needs to be extinguished so that we may advance the cause of our planet. I seek out dissenting opinions and attempt to seduce them into debate. I speak to them in friendly, rapport-building ways so that they continue to listen and may be swayed. I can’t claim ownership over any conversion – but a significant number of people I’ve had decent discussions with are now atheist or at least agnostic.
So what’s your story? What effect has NLP had upon your life, that it’s been rewarded with this emotive and dedicated attention from you?
I’m an atheist
And I’m no new ager either. Using NLP to convert people to atheism sounds to me to be a bit like trying to convert people using leeches or the laying on of hands. Its using pseudoscience to attack pseudoscience.
There are things “behind NLP” that can make NLP seem to work. Social pressure, cognitive bias, exectation etc. Embedded commands and so on are really only going to give you a set of new age rituals to work with.
There are a lot of psychological factors that could be used to enhance a de-programming conversation. However, best to use and refer to the really powerful and well supported notions of bias, social pressure, perceived authority, reference to vivid appeals, and so on. Then of course, sensible argument with evidence to back it up.
Social psychology is probably more powerful than cog psych in this case. Here are some recommendations from the other side of the fence:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
I suggest a “phantom” for atheism could be something to do with gaining a sense of wonder about the universe, with the most reliable evidence as support. The atheist version of a “granfalloon” would probably be society in general, or a group of people who can be consistent about their beliefs about knowledge, and technology/ flying in planes etc.
I know that makes it sound a bit more difficult than using quickfix NLP.
But realistically, it is.
NLP techniques do make some good changes. NLP or Neuro-Liguistic Programming benefits well being. Optimistic thoughts are a potent tool that can be utilized inside the therapy and revitalization of patients. Neuro Linguistic Programming can assist patients to preserve the proper strategy towards their illness. It can bring improvement with a constructive outlook towards their circumstance. Thanks.
You can say the same about scientology and magick. There is no evidence for the efficacy of neuro-linguistic programming, scientology or magick. Just testimonials. So should we try to use scientology or magick to convert people to atheism?
I doubt it
BTW, here is an NLP author (Andrew Bradbury) who shows the usual pseudoscience character by threatening libel to stifle scientific debate when his religion is questioned:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpandthreatsoflibelaction/
Its not just the lack of concept validity, the fact that it has failed testing, and been identified as discredited in published independent research.
http://knol.google.com/k/neurolinguistic-programming#
(see peer reviewed journals in references section)
Its the fact that the proponents behave in such an obviously pseudo-scientific and crankish fashion.
Understand why new age cults grow. Understand basic social psychology. Then its easier to find likely methods for “deprogramming” people from religion.
Not easy, but possible.
Back again Dave. Welcome!
Could I trouble you to address two issues:
1. I am curious about what it is about NLP that encourages such passionate and dedicated attention from you. Could you describe what is is that causes you invest your valuable time into debunking it? I can see from a cursory look at the net that you’re active on discussion boards and youtube, it seems like quite a fascination of yours.
2. Could you address the points that are actually written about in this blog and describe why they wouldn’t work – where they’ve been tested and how they have been disproven?
NLP is not magic (or ye olde magick) – it’s a way of observing and understanding what makes effective communicators good at what they do, and copying that. You’ll notice this blog doesn’t mention timelines, visual accessing cues, submodalities or any of the contentious areas that make pseudo-scientific claims. Embedded commands are a well established bastardisation of Milton Erickson’s work. Yes, there are ‘things behind NLP’ that make it ‘seem to work’ – social pressures, cognitive biases, expectation, behavioural patterns. Those are exactly the effects this blog teaches people how to exploit.
Giving people wonder for the complexity of the universe is, at heart, a folly. It will just as often cause a believer to deepen their belief, because ‘adaptive preference formation’ will cause them to choose the more appealing idea that reinforces what they already believe: “Wow God made all this for me!”
A Catholic might use the above suggestions, tricks, or emphases, to convert people to their religion, but they wouldn’t use the computerlike terms. They would attribute any success to the power of their god.
You are using a pretty general set of tricks with computerlike terms (embedded commands etc) and you attribute your success to your religion (Neuro-linguistic programming)
Neuro-linguistic programing is just as much of a grandiose, vague and confusing attribution as god.
I would attribute a reasonable level of success to things that have been tested independently using the scientific method. I have no reason to bring god, neuro-linguistic programming, dianetics, or the enneagram etc into it at all.
You sir, dearest David Artner/Arnold/NLPeedOff, are a flaming muppet. I am beginning to suspect you are mildly retarded.
Are you aware that this post is about communication skills? If you want to argue about the efficacy of NLP as a tool for being a compelling communicator and influencer, then for god’s sake mate, demonstrate how wonderfully competent you are at communicating.
Establish some authority on the subject.
You know, that old ‘conversation’ biscuit? That game where you address the points raised and instead of repeating yourself, you move with the flow of what’s going on? You could paste links to pages that are enjoyable to read. You could really go nuts and answer questions, demonstrate to readers that you have a fun brain and a clever tongue, develop some rapport with them, and convince them that you’re right rather than proving that you’re wrong.
It’s not science. It’s common sense.
I agree with the criticisms against NLP.
Your essentially using real science “social pressures, cognitive biases, expectation”, and mixing it with pseudoscience “hypnotic-commands, embedded commands”.
When I was learning dating theory as a pickup artist, it was pretty hard separating what was a useful idea, from what was probably a gimmick. I’m familiar with the theory behind NLP via Ross Jeffries, (who is a dating god, and the ultimate sleazeball).
The irony is your trying to persuade people to move into reality, by embracing a fantasy where NLP is a respected and scientific way to change someone’s mind. If this were true, treating OCD would be a hell of a lot easier!
Without evidence, its wishful thinking. You want to be a grown boy and an atheist standing on top of the mountain of reason, you got to accept that without evidence…
Its wishful thinking.
Nicely said.
Yeah there is some gimmicky stuff in there – but I think you might be a bit off on what you call pseudo scientific. Hypnosis is fairly strong scientifically, the only real debate stems from whether it’s an ‘altered state’, I’m personally a ‘non-state’ believer.
It is clear though that neurological scans indicate profoundly altered brain wave patterns. http://www.pnas.org/content/102/28/9978.abstract
Hypnotic commands are the instructions that people can choose to follow to enter a ‘trance’ – (subject to suggestibility and social pressure and expectation). Yes, hypnosis is used in conjunction with CBT to deal with obsessive compulsive disorder: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10769982
Though it’s really very hard to design a study because you can’t test against a placebo, because hypnosis is placebo – you’d just be testing different placebo efficacy.
NLP is a good fit for influence of all sorts
NLP and the foNLP (field of NLP) are not pseudo-scientific. The originators have already stated that they are not doing theory or science. NLP is a model not a science, therefore it CANNOT BE pseudo-science.
But this is all quite obvious to those in the know. Most criticisms of NLP come from people who refer to scientific studies, but come from a completely ignorant point of view. NLP works. Anyone who has tried with real experts it will tell you that
The problem here is that there is a group of people who are running a company that competes with NLP (Cognitive Edge). Dave is probably Dave Snowden who also lords it over this ill-informed article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
This video is complete propaganda. It comes from the point of view of ignorance and lies:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdwl8h_characteristics-of-pseudoscience_tech
Understand first, then make a comment
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/
Be well
Ah, well that would explain a lot – why Dave has two surnames, why he dislikes it so much, and why he’d bother to write about it.
A scientology and neuro-linguistic programming critic who prefers to remain anonymous? I’d recommend it! Just look at the attacks coming from those true believers when they get together (read the comments)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdwl8h_characteristics-of-pseudoscience_tech
“NLP is a model not a science, therefore it CANNOT BE pseudo-science.”. Mmmm!, then perhaps astrologers and scientologists should say they are just modeling, then they will not be doing pseudo-science???
Its ironic that pseudo-scientists like to invoke outdated UK libel laws to stifle scientific debate:
https://sites.google.com/site/nlpandthreatsoflibelaction/
Then they libel completely unrelated companies and people. Its the conspiracy mindset characteristic of pseudo-scientific cults the world over. If you believe the claims of scientologists, you really are scraping the barrel. Persuasion power? I don’t think so!
“DrHarbin(ger)”. If you write books such as this one:
http://knol.google.com/k/neurolinguistic-programming#Ethical_concerns
don’t be surprised when people question your claims.
Anon
Ugh, after berating you for dodging the point David, your motives for hiding behind pseudonyms and avoiding my question (“Why do you care?”) have become clear and it’s my unfortunate job to be honest and side (even if only partially) with you for a moment.
Yes David Snowden/Arnold/Artner/Artnold/Harrow is right – the claim that it’s a ‘model’ does not excuse NLP from testability. DrHarbin, If you claim that it’s an art, then that’d be a different matter, but if you make claims that are testable (as NLP definitely does), then you ought welcome skeptical scrutiny. Astrology also claims to be ‘outside the realm of science’, but makes testable scientific claims. Do we willingly seek the truth and abandon good ideas that prove to be misguided, or do we protect them from scrutiny and present them as a ‘model’? The latter is the anatomy of pseudoscience.
And, both of you: Stop posting links to woefully unattractive websites or poorly made videos. We are debating the efficacy of a model for persuasion – which is VERY difficult to test scientifically. If you’re reasonable, as are most of my readers, then you can decide your own burden of proof, and for anyone reading this, the requirement will be: Is this person demonstrating the values they claim to be capable of teaching? If you tell people you have a secret method of persuasion, then persuade us you’re right. If you claim to have a big wang, get it out!
That youtube video looks like someone ingested a whole bunch of copyrighted images and regurgitated them to the sound of stolen music; the ‘knol’ article is transparently biased; Honest Abe’s Emporium is a how-to guide for bad web design; and Cynefin is a ‘sense-making model’ that doesn’t make any sense – and I sat through the whole video, TWICE. I’m now 16 minutes older and about 20 IQ points dumber.
This site is made by one dude (me) in one day, and looks better than all of that mess. Step up boys. Show us what you’ve got!
I agree with you about testing and skepticism- With the caveat of where it can be tested and also HOW.
Furthermore, Testing depends on the approach and methodology used. Phenomenology is a valid method of enquiry for that reason alone, I personally do not think that NLP is outside the realm of Science. NLP is touted by the founders as a pragmatic model, (not ‘a’ science – that’s an important distinction to make). Your own article depends on it for it to be coherent and useable, and indeed, you test it personally every time you use it (to pursuade).
One thought to ponder: What effort was put in to validate and publish the Meta-Model and Milton Model? Was it all just a week-end’s work?
HOWEVER I agree that Skeptical scrutiny ought to be WELCOMED – the issue is that there has been so little of it! That goes for research funding too regrettably. any donations welcome…
There HAS been extensive testing by Sharvet and JobEQ on Meta-Programs by the way.
Most of the opposing argument is opinion from people ignorant of the field or backed up by faulty and/or manipulated data and more opinion or Ad-Hominem attacks. Indeed, this approach appears to strengthen the validity, albeit on baseless grounds!
Thankfully, I shan’t bore you with pesky links.
‘Good Luck’,
The REAL Dr Harbinger.
Whut? Are there two of you or was someone pretending to be you?
Hi All,
Last time I came across “David Arnold” was on an NLP-related discussion in James Randi’s corner of Facebook. However, based on various clues in his posts (favourite links, frequently used words, specific accusations, limited breadth of knowledge, structure of arguments, etc.) it would appear that David has posted on a substantial number of websites – always denigrating NLP – under names such as Andy McFay, Krish Singh, Dr. Elizabeth Warwick, Goe Greenfield, Carl Thorn, and several others.
In mentioning the libel law, here at least we can be certain that Dave Arnold is lying. In fact the claim that HIS posts were libelous had nothing to do with intelligent criticism (unless writing “NLP is pseudoscience” over and over again – with no valid evidence is intelligent criticism). In fact, under his various aliases Dave/David seems to think that increaingly abusive personal comments are a valid part of intelligent criticism.
In reality, it is my belief that “Dave’s” ONLY purpose, sad though it may be, is to popst messages that will disrupt any intelligent discussion and annoy any NLPers taking part.
This is by no means a vague guess. This is something “Dave” stated outright on a certain Skeptics’ discussion group, when he was usiing the aliases “Andy McFay” and “Krish Singh”.
(IIRC it was “Krish” who actually made the statement).
In short, trying to reason with “David” or any of his personas is essential pointless. Making sense is simply not one of his basic intentions.
Admin
You make so many comments about “NLP” I think it would be best if I limited my answers to one or two at a time. Thus, in an early post you say:
> I do agree, it is awkwardly pseudo-scientific, but I would suggest
> to you that almost all of psychotherapy is pseudo-scientific, with
> the rare exception of CBT.”
In what specific sense is ‘NLP’ pseudo-scientific?
NLP itself is a specific, non-analytical modelling process. NOTHING ELSE.
It is used by every able-bodied baby in the world as they learn to walk and talk. And by quite a few of those who aren’t so fortunate.
Where, then, is the “pseudo-science”?
> The difficulty with NLP’s scientific validity is that it’s so poorly
> regulated.
Pardon? Who is regulating “NLP” at all?
> almost anything passes as NLP.
It might seem like that to YOU. But it isn’t true. The work done by Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik sets out the boundaries of the authentic field of NLP (FoNLP). Anything other than that – unless it adheres to the same guidelines, ISN’T authentic NLP-related material.
see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax03.htm for more discussion
> It did fail testing, probably in the 1980′s and many times since
> then,
Sez who? It didn’t fail any testing.
>but not because it doesn’t work, but more because the
> claims it makes are difficult to test.
No. It was REPORTED as having failed many tests BECAUSE the tests didnn’t address any genuine claims made for any genuine element of the FoNLP.
Here’s a simple example:
Bandler and Grinder wrote, in two separate books (1976 and 1979) that the one way to determine someone’s PRS (preferred representational system – doesn’t matter here what theyare , just we all have them) was by listening to their use of sensory predicates. Now that’s hardly obscure. Yet many researchers, and reviewers, over the last 30 odd years have insisted that “NLP” (the modelling technique!) says that there are THREE ways to determine someone’s PRS – by watching their eye movements, by self-report AND/OR by listening to their use of sensory predicates.
It is very noiticable that whilst the Bandler and Grinder statements are always ignored by these “scientists”, tno one (for very obvious reasons) has yet come up with a quote to support the three ways claim.
That isn’t a difficulty. That’s either carelessness, dishonesty or stupidity.
For a growing body of evidence – from academics – see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm
> That’s what makes it very > close to pseudo-scientific, the unfalsifiability.
Sorry, but this allegation is also incorrect.
The underlying point is this: Pnly psychologists accuse NLP of being pseudoscience. Which is something of an irony since the whole of psychology – unless it is based on a materialist foundation (e.g. neuropsychology) is NOT A SCIENCE.
Critics who have a background in theology or the sociology of religion ignore the “pseudoscience” accusation, as do two characters who claim that NLP’s aim is to create a world without conflict.
For a detailed survey of academic criticisms of the FoNLP see
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm
and the linked sub-FAQs.
And please note, every single one of the sub FAQs has been submitted to the relevant academics for corrections bar one – and the one is the solo article by Beyerstein, who died several years before I wrote about his article.
I have made ALLof the changes that have been suggested/asked for (which you could count on the fingers of one hand, by the way).
Not only did you write well, but you wrote at all – I’m honored and will do my best to reply. I know you’re a respected figure in the field, and I heard you on the BBC radio documentary – but unfortunately my comment about your website still stands.
“In what specific sense is ‘NLP’ pseudo-scientific?”
The anatomy is pseudo-science is that it is unfalsifiable. We all have our own definitions, that is mine.
NLP hides from skeptical enquiry, because to say ‘there have been a few studies done that weren’t done right’ is pathetic. If you’re claiming to have a clinical model for psychotherapy, then you should welcome critical observation. You should be doing it yourself. I can’t believe it looks like I’ve switched sides here, but trying to bring some balance to the discussion.
“Sez who? It didn’t fail any testing.”
Sez Sharpley’s obviously flawed research from over 30 years ago. The field has been around for almost 40 years – to reiterate the point: If it works, then you should be joyfully presenting FMRI’s and double-blinded studies and longitudinal research to the world – you should be using that authority to go about cramming it into teaching degrees and training nurses and running CPD courses for psychologists. ALMOST 40 YEARS! C’mon. It works, I know it does. It’s damn difficult to test (because it pretty much is the placebo effect, but give it a go! When I go to Wiki or your BradburyAc or type ‘research study nlp’ into Google, I should be inundated with positive results for NLP’s efficacy, not sift through a trickle of ugly argumentative rebuttals.
Response to my comment that it’s poorly regulated:
“Pardon? Who is regulating “NLP” at all?”
Then me: “Almost anything passes as NLP.”
And then you: “It might seem like that to YOU. But it isn’t true.”
Well to my untrained eye, these seem intrinsically linked. YOU probably have a clear idea of what is NLP, and what is not. But I have trained with some dangerously incompetent people, and there isn’t just no regulation (well there are meagre attempts that amount to little more than money spinning), there’s obvious financial incentives for trainers to over-qualify students. Many qualifications require for little more than paying your fees and staying in the room until the conclusion of the ‘training’ – including (accoding to Derren Brown’s book) Bandler’s own seminars.
Again, you mention the testing, again my point: Don’t complain about other people doing flawed research that shows negative results for you – as your extensive website quite generously provides, do some yourself and prove that you’re right. How’s about you find a strong criteria for determining the efficacy of a range of psychotherapists, sports psychologists and hypnotherapists, asking them each if they’ve heard of NLP, if they’ve trained in it, and if they think it’s got any credibility. If we’re right, there should be a nice smattering of the less effective people down the ‘Not credible’ end of the scale, and a nice high chunk up near the ‘trained in it’ category.
And to finish: I truly do believe that NLP and most of the stuff in the FoNLP is blinding genius, possibly with some speckles of bullshit. I recognise the value and apply it to my life, and have found significant benefits. To me, as a communicator and writer (and other things), it has proven itself to my own socratic standards. But Andy – this David muppet is not really doing any damage to the field, and I can’t understand how you even got here unless you actively seek out criticisms of NLP and argue against them. You’ve gone one step worse than David who apparently seeks out mention of NLP and argues against it. I find you doing it again here: http://www.thenlpinterviews.com/andrew-bradbury.html [Didn't listen to the whole thing, the audio is terrible and it's late and I've got stuff to do].
Andy, still with respect, here’s some coaching for free: Be an example of the benefits of NLP and you have argued your double negative without engaging the likes of David, you will be the living proof of your preachings. If you argue against criticism, you’re giving it credence.
This blog has gone totally off topic and to great repetitious lengths (as apparently you guys do almost every time you meet in cyber-space) and I’m getting bored. So, David, Andy, Steve, Dr Harbin: How would you go about converting a theist into an atheist? Would you do it at all? Why/not? How? When?
Hi Exp
We atheists can always do better. Thats what motivated you and I think it will motivate you much further.
Genius: Well, there’s genius in science, nazism, in scientology and in many good and awful things.
I think the genius is in the fact that you have cut so much nonsense out of NLP here that you are simply not doing NLP any more. You obviously know how to handle NLP authors and sidekicks. The only thing left to do is to cut the NLP jargon and pseudoscientific sourcebooks, and replace them with reliable evidence based psychology.
I would have a bit more faith in the scientists in psychology. There’s one name that crops up here a couple of times
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfbw8nz3_1hqgpsbf7
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
Prof Anthony Pratkanis is so cool, and his lectures really kick ass. It sounds like what you are actually doing is a conversational version of his recommendations.
So, just a suggestion: Write an article on how to convert to atheism using soc psych (or a new brand of your own design)
Kick out the pseudoscience terms and replace with properly researched concepts (association instead of anchoring, verbal emphasis instead of embedded commands etc)
Then you will be attributing your success to plausible and evidence based causes, and directing your friends to reliable literature instead of secondhand scientology.
Sorry for that last line, but lets face it, most skeptical atheists are going to laugh themselves purple at the sound of neuro-linguistic programming.
Back to the nexus!
Wow, David – you know I get given your IP address when you write a comment, right? Changing your ‘name’ to Simon doesn’t obscure your identity, or your stupidity.
So whats your reply to the content of the post?
Or will you be stuck on form for the duration?
The content is lies, and you’re a flaming muppet. Good luck selling your ‘Sense-Making Model’ mate. PS: NLP isn’t why nobody buys it.
Thanks much
You just won me a bet
See you anon
“Whut? Are there two of you or was someone pretending to be you?”
It’s a long story and you really don’t need to be bored by it – so I won’t go there.
As you say, too much repetition; especially from Dave {insert surname here} and it’s going off topic.
‘Dr Harbinger’
Admin
Despite the length of your reply, examining just two points will suffice:
> If you’re claiming to have a clinical model for psychotherapy,
> then you should welcome critical observation. You should be
> doing it yourself. I can’t believe it looks like I’ve switched
> sides here, but trying to bring some balance to the discussion.
If you heard the BBC programme then you surely heard Bandler say that “NLP” is NOT psychotherapy. I have also spoken, in person, to the other two creators – John Grinder and Frank Pucelik – and they both state that “NLP” never was, is not, and was never intended to be a form of psychotherapy.
If you insist of this tunnel vision version of what we’re talking about then the discussion is surely going nowhere.
> “Sez who? It didn’t fail any testing.”
> Sez Sharpley’s obviously flawed research from over 30 years ago.
Actually I discussed Sharpley’s article’s with him, a couple of years ago, and he stuill doesn’t understand what NLP and the FoNLP are about. He’s also stuck in the “NLP = psychotherapy” rut. And by the way, neither Sharpley nor Heap had done one jot of live research before writing their articles. They just assumed that the people whose work they were reviewing were right. Even when it was clear that there was no commonality in the research itself, let alone the results.
> The field has been around for almost 40 years – to reiterate the
> point: If it works, then you should be joyfully presenting FMRI’s
> and double-blinded studies and longitudinal research to the
Oh really?
The most frequently investigated topics in the FoNLP have been representational systems, Preferred Representational Systems, Eye Movements and Predicate Matching.
You might like to read
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax32.htm
Since it relates to a study paper in which two social psychologists from Harvard, one of them the renowned Professor Robert “Pygmalion in the Classroom” Rosenthal, explain why it ISN’T POSSIBLE to run meaningful single or double blind tests on the Predicate Matching technique.
> you should be using that authority to go about
> cramming it into teaching degrees and training
> nurses and running CPD courses for psychologists
>. ALMOST 40 YEARS!
Why “should” we do anything? In my experience NLP-related techniques are being taught in, and used in, any number of business courses. Just no one mentions “NLP” by name to avoid pointless discussions.
A friend of mine ran courses for NHS staff that counted towards their yearly training requirement. He is now a university lecturer. He has been using NLP-related techniques longer than I have – but he never uses that name, to avoid pointless discussions/arguments. I worked as a trainer in the IT section of a major British telecoms company for nearly fourteen years. I regularly used NLP-related techniques, but I never used that name to describe them – to avoid pointless discussions.
The magazine New Scientist ran an article on persuasion techniques some time ago. The first technique was called “mimicry” – and the description of how to use it, though brief, could have been put into any book of authentic NLP-related techniques – under “matching and mirroring” or just “pacing” and I would bet that few if any people, no matter how knowledgeable about the genuine NLP-related techniques, would know this came from an outside source.
The current issue of Scientific MIND includes a report of research that indicates that some people order their life events as though they were sequentially ordered and located in space from left to right or from right to left, or from behind to in front or from in front to behind. Which fits just fine with the NLP-related ideas about time lines that have been around for most of the time that the FoNLP itself has been around.
In short, NLP-related materials have been in widespread public use for at least a couple of decades. Academics are gradually catching up. As Lao Tsu is supposed to have said, the best leader is the one who let’s his followers think they did all the hard work themselves. It creates less resistence.
So welcome to the FoNLP, Admin. It’s already going on all around you.
The idea that people who are involved with NLP and the FoNLP somehow NEED to prove the value of what we’re doing is simply out of date. We’ve already done that – the NLP-related way!
Innit!
;¬)
P.S. How would I use “NLP” to turn a theist into an atheist?
I wouldn’t.
IMO it would not be ethical.
BTW, I would also point out that the original blog is a mixture of reasonably accurate material, and pure baloney.
For example, the writer seems to have no idea what “rapport” means in the context of the FoNLP.
Given how important s/he says it is (and I agree), that’s something of a setback since it leads to all kinds of unnecessarily lengthy and quite possibly fruitless effort.
But then again, critics of “NLP”, from the “Dave’s” to the professors, mostly share a common self-limitation – they aren’t prepared to make the effort to properly research the subject before they start pontificating.
Again I refer you to http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm
Let the Professors speak for themselves.
Great – which bits are baloney?
I’m not being argumentative, I’d genuinely like to know for the sake of accuracy.
Psst – I’m a he.
Next question: Would it be possible, and if so, how would you do it?
Simon David Arnold Atrner (etc.) wrote:
> Kick out the pseudoscience terms and replace with properly
> researched concepts (association instead of anchoring,
> verbal emphasis instead of embedded commands etc)
Oops!
Anchoring is actually akin to (though not exactly the same as, Pavlov’s “stimulus-response”). The term “anchoring” is used simply because it indicates how a stimulus becomes strongly linked – “anchored” to a particular response.
(It is not EXACTLY the same because it is a process of conscious selection not an involuntary response.)
Likewise “verbal emphasis” is not a match for “embedded commands”
“Embedded command” refers to the actual “command”, and “vocal emphasis” (NOT “verbal”)indicates how the commend is highlighted.
Sorry. Still no cigar.
Hi Admin
Sorry about that, it took me a while to realize that “Admin” was a title rather than a nickname
As to the baloney, I’ve given you one example. You want a free lesson in the subject?
In my experience people don’t mucgh value what they get for free. If you are really interested then you will make the necessary effort. If you aren’t prepared to do that then why are you going to take much notice of a few brief comments from me?
Would it be possible?
Come on, Admin – that depends on who you’re dealing with, their level of understanding and why they hold their particular beliefs in the first place.
Derren Brown was a “happy clappy chappie” – not exactly the height of intellectual commitment – and I believe he found his way out on his own.
I’d guess that there are many people whose religious ideas are founded on nothing but a kinaesthetic response to certain stimuli – which could likewise be disrupted without the need to resort to the use of NLP-related or any other kind of specialised technique.
There might also be some people who have explored their beliefs – but not in very much depth. These people might be susceptible to the use of any kind of confusion technique – again not necessarily those found in the FoNLP.
Your blog doesn’t really deal with people who have a deeper level of commitment than that, which is probably why you have found things so easy, even though you aren’t really using authentic NLP-related techniques.
And that, on ethical grounds, is all I am prepared to say.
Comment barred for link bombing.
Tsk, tsk.
The can you opened contains many worms, and it would take a very large post to make all the relevant information available.
Far from “link bombing” I was citing relevant material which your visitors could visit to get that information IF THEY WANTED TO.
That seemed, to me, like a far more convenient way of making the point. But then again, I understand that you, too, have an agenda.
It also occurs to me that there was one aspect of the FoNLP which is worth highlighting, since it stands in complete opposition to this blog:
The main issue seems to be a need/wish to disrupt people’s religious beliefs because YOU think they are harmful. Though I’m not sure there isn’t also a hint of a thrill at the thought of having messed with other people’s minds.
Not surprisingly, then, it seems that the intention is to do this covertly – as win/lose manipulation.
And with no thought or concern for any negative consequences that might be triggered by such manipulation, such as depression, loss of self-confidence/self-esteem, significantly increased emotional vulnerability, etc.
In the FoNLP, on the other hand, it is a basic tenet that even when communicating with someone’s unconscious, the techniques should be used to create win/win situations.
Not as a way of imposing one person’s beliefs on someone.
Two elements in that process are “ecology” – giving the subject an opportunity to decide what downside, if any, there might be, to the process (and allowing them to call a halt to the activity if they wish) – and creating an initial “rollback point”, so to speak, so that any changes can be subsequently undone if the subject requires it.
This seems, to me, to be in direct contradiction to what you are proposing, and I hope my explanation will help you to appreciate why I have no interest in furnishing you with any help in your machinations.
Indeed, I think it quite possible that regardless of your initial success, if any, in the long run you will find that people aren’t as dim/gullible as the blog suggests, and they will quite possibly return to their beliefs with even greater conviction.
which would, of course, put you in the ironical position of having strengthened the faith of people whose faith you tried to destroy!
I also find it rather sad that you *apparently* feel unable to achieve the ends which you obviously value so highly by straightforward discussion. It suggests that you have little faith in the possibility of providing a convincing OVERT sales pitch for atheism.
But then again, after reading Sam Harris, Polly Toynbee, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, et al. on the subject, perhaps it is unfair/unrealistic of me to ask or expect anything more effective from your good self..
Be well
Andy B.
Your comment was not deleted – your links are in context and appear twice maximum. David’s were appearing multiple times, and when it got to the point of posting nothing but links (to artificially boost his rankings) I deleted them. All opinions are welcome, and contextual links are allowed.
Hi Admin
Keeping well, I hope?
The reason for my return is simply that I was taking part in an Amazon discussion the other day when someone made the usual vacuous claim that people with religious beliefs don’t think, but atheists do.
And I was reminded of this comment from your article:
“But is it ethically responsible to shift someone’s beliefs?
Well, yes. Provided you aren’t supplanting their beliefs with your own. You should be igniting within them a healthy curiosity tempered with a dose of skepticism. Good atheists should live in a comfortable state of not knowing.”
Which raises three interesting points:
1. Clearly your intention is to supplant thew other person’s beliefs with your own – specifically the belief that NOT having religious beliefs is better than having religious beliefs.
2. Indeed, it appears that you believe you know what ALL atheists should think – even though “not knowing” is an AGNOSTIC attitude rather than an atheistic position which – as far as I understand it, would be something akin to: “As far as I can fathom it, there is NO God. Which clearly is NOT “a comfortable state of not knowing”.
I woner – to return to my original point – that gels with the oh so common claim that atheists think and religiously inclined people don’t?
3. Your other key belief, which I think I covered before, is that you are entitled to mess with other people’s minds, without their knowledge or permission, with no need for any justification other than that YOU think it is a good idea (I’m not sure I understand exactly how that works for you since you hastily start ducking and diving just in time to avoid acknowledging any responsibility for your own actions and the consequences thereof.
Take care, now.
Andy B.
1. Regarding my “belief that NOT having religious beliefs is better than having religious beliefs.” – I do believe this, but I am not set on inculcating that belief within others, because I’m aware that it may well be wrong. This issue stands separate from the existence of god – just as one’s desire for their football team to win doesn’t improve their chances of taking the trophy. Are you suggesting that even if no god exists, it’s good for people to devote their life to believing that one does? So in answer, yes I believe that – but my feeling is that they will come to that conclusion themselves, if given the confidence, information and space to assess their existence rationally.
2. Yes, I use atheism where I might use the term agnostic – because the common usage of agnostic often refers to people who believe in a supernatural power but don’t follow a specific religion. I actually much prefer the term ‘ignostic’ – which declines to get engaged in a debate about god’s existence until the believer can define what god is (and is not). A comfortable state of not knowing can still ascribe probabilities to something – go back to the football analogy. I can look at the world around me and inspect it for evidence of a creator, and failing to find anything that compels me, I can say there probably isn’t one, but if new evidence came to light, or the heavens tore apart and god came down to correct me, I’d happily adjust that belief. As it stands, every description of god sounds like an excuse for his absence – and the men who claim to be conduits to his word and the declaimers will are, in my judgement, morally corrupt. Owing to both of those things, my state of not knowing rests the probability upon his not existing.
3. Yes I feel free to ‘mess with people’s minds’ because I believe I’m doing them a service. Us evangelical atheists are also battling against millenia of belief implantation. I find it strange that you see my decision to disabuse adults of their delusions to be a bad thing. Do you consider parents who teach terrifying fantasies to their children to be okay?
I am curious Andy, how do you define yourself religiously, and separate from the existence of god, do you think that churches are a force for good in the world?
Admin asked:
“I am curious Andy, [1] how do you define yourself religiously, and [2] separate from the existence of god, do you think that churches are a force for good in the world?”
1. I am a Christian, though not a particularly good example.
2. Churches are like any other organization – any given church is as “good”, or not, as the people leading it and the people who attend it. A good church is – in my opinion – one where the congregation get the kind of education in their religion that would enable them to knock behaviour like that you advocate on it’s backside without stopping to draw breath.
For example, near the start of this blog you say:
“Anyway, forget the moral dilemma, this blog isn’t about why, it’s about how.”
To which the very obvious answer is simply: “Only a person with no moral standards would claim they could divorce their behaviour from the moral standards on which it is based.”
End of story.
By the way, since you imply that your standard of intellect is higher than people with conventional religious beliefs, I invite you to read one of John Lennox’s recent books which purports to rebut the various arguments put forward by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchins, etc., just as he has nailed Dawkins, Hitchens and others in public debates in various countries.
Of course the arguments are presented openly to encourage thought, rather than covertly or in a way that would circumvent thoughtful consideration. But I bet you can get used to that if you try
It’s called: “Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target”, published by Lion.
Come to think of it, if you really want people to think things out for themselves, why do you rely so heavily on covert manipulation?
Seems kinda self-defeating/rather revealing, if you know what I mean. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
BTW1, that photo of the bus – the poster has a classic error in it – a failure to understand how the intended audience are likely to respond to certain words.
In this case the instruction to “stop worrying” is likely to have created more resistence than it avoided, because (in my fairly long experience) one of the things many people hate to think they are doing – about anything – is “worrying”.
BTW2, did you hear about Dawkins’ next great idea? Another poster, this time showing two smiling children with the slogan: “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.”
Problem: The two children photographed for the poster came from a family of devout Christians. Still, as their father said, it was nice to know that the atheists who selected that photo thought that his children looked the epitome of genuine happiness and intellectual freedom.
BTW3, if Dawkins et al want children to be left free to think whichever way they choose until they are old enough to make genuinely independent decisions about what they will believe, why are they trying to promote summer camps where the children (presumably the offspring of atheists?) will be further inculcated with atheistic notions?
Looks like incredibly confused thinking, especially coming from someone who so modestly labels himself and his fellow thinkers “brights”.
(ROTFLMBSO)