undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdalke10y ago0 comments

I looked at your first URL. My earlier comments hold.

For example, it says (concerning using mental imagery) "This result comes as no surprise to anyone with even basic training in NLP. Imagining “themselves performing this act, with as much sensory detail as possible” has been a standard and essential part of rehearsing or “future-pacing” any behavioral change."

A quick search shows that behavior rehearsal was part of non-NLP since at least the early 1970s. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311981/ , "Training predelinquent youths and their parents to negotiate conflict situations":

> In response to parental requests for assistance in dealing with adolescent problem children, three parent-child pairs were taught negotiation responses to hypothetical conflict situations using behavior rehearsal and social reinforcement. The negotiation process was separated into component behaviors that were practised during simulations by each youth and his parent under the direction of trainers. Results indicated that (a) the procedures were successful in training youths and their parents in negotiation behaviors that produced agreements to conflict situations, and (b) these behaviors generalized to actual conflict situations in subjects' homes.

or a clinical trial from 1981 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7205244/ , "The treatment of social phobia. Real-life rehearsal with nonprofessional therapists."

> It was concluded that repeated behavior rehearsal, both in the clinic and in real life is a cost-effective treatment procedure for many social phobias. The approach is straightforward and can be applied by nonprofessionals, including the patients themselves, after limited training and with minimal supervision.

Further, the original synopsis at http://digest.bps.org.uk/2011_06_01_archive.html points out that it's not just imagery which is important, but that there was question: why was there a seeming

> contradiction with earlier research showing implementation intentions are most helpful to those with compromised willpower? Churchill and Jessop can't be sure, but they said one possibility could be because their task of eating more fruit and veg is more complex than some of the lab tasks studied previously.

The summary of the summary at realpeoplepress.com leaves out these complexities.

0 comments

johw10y ago

That is interesting.

To sum up, you say that a technique which NLP uses was non-NLP before and works, that's why NLP is not scientific?

Maybe I'm too tired right now, but for me that's a clearer NLP pro argument than I could come up with.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong. I think NLP works and whoever wants to try it should do it, but be careful not to learn from charlatans. These who want to wait for scientific evidence can also do so.

dalkeOP10y ago

Here's an analogy. In some churches, the faithful will kneel in order to pray. Now I come along and say that praying 200 times per day will lead to better health. We put this to a test, and find it's true. But there are conflating factors - is it the praying, or the physical exercise through kneeling, or doing it in a church, or all of the above, which lead to the outcome?

A Kneelologist could stop, be happy that it works, and promote Kneelism as a healthy activity. But a non-kneelologist could point out that it's similar to calisthenics, which was already known to give similar positive results, is simpler to understand because it doesn't require the prayer component, and can done by people who are against prayer or don't have ready access to a church.

(Or for a real world example, the asanas from hatha yoga are used as exercise, and called 'yoga' even though yoga is a much broader topic.)

The scientific approach would address some important factors: 1) is the effect real and reproducible?, 2) when should be be used instead of other forms of treatment, and 3) what are the possible conflating factors and can we disentangle them to improve 1) and 2)?

Applying that to NLP, and making this up because I don't know the details. What if NLP is an incorrect synthesis of real-world observations that were already known at the time NLP was developed? In that, the ability of NLP to predict similar effects is not surprising. Other psychology models developed since Bandura's work in the 1960s also need to "predict" that behavior rehearsal can be an effective treatment.

Instead, what new predictions does NLP make which are different from other behavioral models? Can those predictions be tested? Or failing the ability to make new predictions, is it a simper model which it at least equally effective as other models in describing behavior?

That's where the science comes in.

NLP might work. But so might cognitive psychology, and with seemingly fewer worries about charlatans.

johw10y ago

Yes you are right in the scientific approach.

What's more, NLP was not really developed. The techniques have been copied - or "stolen" - from other approaches, starting with Gestalt therapy. Therefore it's not a simple coincidence that you encounter similar techniques elsewhere.

Also, does NLP really need to bring novel ideas for it to be recognized? It does not promise anything like that, because that is not it's goal. NLP is about stealing what works to extend its "toolbox". That is also one of the points why it is considered being a pseudo science, "copying what works" is not scientific. In my opinion, not focusing on science is a major flaw of NLP. Therefore I hope that the NLP research organisation or others will change that.

Also, like you said, it is also possible that there are flaws in the copies, i.e. by making wrong conclusion from the observations. I would find it interesting to compare the NLP versions with the scientific versions to find the differences and maybe correct one or the other model after running some tests.

Btw. Do you know if depression or PTSD therapy based on the "scientific" psychoanalysis does yield results today?

dalkeOP10y ago

"does NLP really need to bring novel ideas for it to be recognized?"

Of course not. It could be synonymous with "best practices." But even if it were identical to best practices, it uses set of unique terminology which makes it harder to understand. Why does it do that?

I do not know the answer to your last question.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

johw10y ago

That is interesting.

To sum up, you say that a technique which NLP uses was non-NLP before and works, that's why NLP is not scientific?

Maybe I'm too tired right now, but for me that's a clearer NLP pro argument than I could come up with.

dalkeOP10y ago

(Or for a real world example, the asanas from hatha yoga are used as exercise, and called 'yoga' even though yoga is a much broader topic.)

That's where the science comes in.

NLP might work. But so might cognitive psychology, and with seemingly fewer worries about charlatans.

johw10y ago

Yes you are right in the scientific approach.

Btw. Do you know if depression or PTSD therapy based on the "scientific" psychoanalysis does yield results today?

dalkeOP10y ago

"does NLP really need to bring novel ideas for it to be recognized?"

I do not know the answer to your last question.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse