![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
How Does NLP Work?
I’ve finally started dipping into research about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). It’s history seems to be criss-crossed with many of the areas I’ve been studying lately such as Scientology, the Landmark Forum, etc. Plus it seems to deal directly with the purpose of and limits to language.
It’s a big topic, so I’m going to probably approach it in chunks, rather than trying to digest the whole field at once. The first thing that strikes me about it is that by most accounts it seems to lack a central theory of how it actually works. Rather than focusing on how things work, they seem to be more interested in actually making things work. Results over theory, to put it simply. The basis of it seems to be studying successful behaviors, and creating models to duplicate these behaviors in others. If the models themselves aren’t successful, they are changed or abandoned in favor of something that is successful.
In other words, this is a very slippery field to explain, it seems. Which is exactly what makes it interesting. The pieces I’ve read on it so far are Wikipedia’s entry on NLP, and the Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on it. Sometimes I really like the Skepdic website because they almost always take a negative view, which can be very useful for balancing or grounding a line of inquiry. Some entries are better than others though. This one on NLP is not very thorough. I do find this last paragraph to have a couple of useful talking points in it:
It seems that NLP develops models which can’t be verified, from which it develops techniques which may have nothing to do with either the models or the sources of the models. NLP makes claims about thinking and perception which do not seem to be supported by neuroscience. This is not to say that the techniques won’t work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether it works. However, how do you measure the claim “NLP works”? I don’t know and I don’t think NLPers know, either. Anecdotes and testimonials seem to be the main measuring devices.
Such statements seem to disagree with the basic underpinnings of NLP. The author here seems to be interested in finding an explanation. Since NLP doesn’t concern itself with that, the author becomes frustrated. The author seems also unable to accept the “results-based” perspective of NLP - not on it’s own, but simply because he can’t verify these results. Or rather, since they can’t be verified objectively.
This feeds back into the idea I’ve been discussing about science diminishing the role of personal experience. The author above explains: “Anecdotes and testimonials seem to be the main measuring devices.” The implication, of course, is that these are unacceptable measuring devices. But how else are we to measure personal experience? If NLP offers to change personal experience, then the only measuring device seems to be personal experience. Unless you are willing to experience it yourself, your only source of information is necessarily going to consist of “anecdotes and testimonials”.
The danger here seems to be that the anecdotes or testimonials may either not be genuine or may be from people who have a distorted perspective. If this is indeed the problem, how is it solved through the use of scientific measurement - the very nature of which is in keeping itself outside of or apart from human experience.
In any event, I don’t have a solution for this, but it seems to be a very thorny issue which comes up again and again not only in spiritual and psychological disciplines, but in the very nature of social reality.
July 16th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
I find this interesting because I have some little experience with NLP.
I know that the practice has a rap in this community and not without reason. But it’s a powerful tool to be used for good or ill.
I think that some answers might be forthcoming by exploring the interface between linguistics and psychology. Language has more subtle role in reality creation than I find is generally recognized. I’d also suggest reading some of the early work of Grindler and Bandler, to go to the original source material.
Another piece in this particular puzzle might be the work of Milton Erickson.
July 16th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
as an nlp practitioner i will state catigorically that ALL of my work begins with the distortions, deletions and editing of the person i`m helping. without understanding how a person does what they do, i can`t begin to show them how to change. science will only begin to understand and measure nlp when it understands that. grinder and bandler developed nlp by synthesising milton erickson, virginia satir, gregory bateson, korzebski and others into a way of developing models of behaviour. this developement continues to this day.
anecdotes and testemonials are a window into how people see thier world. that`s where aliens, ufos, succubi, faith healing, magic and all the other stuff hides from science.
July 16th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Yeah, I was trying to begin by looking at what that one skeptical author wrote about NLP, and using his story and analysis of it to backwards-engineer what his underlying suppositions are. I can definitely see the effectiveness of that as a technique.
July 16th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
i am intrigued to see what you find tim.
July 17th, 2005 at 5:07 am
I am on my way to the NLP Practitioner. I can give no opinion on the scientific foundations (or lack thereof) of NLP, but, NLP works, so much I can say from observation and experience.
IMO the Wikipedia entry is accurate enough, but the assertions quoted in the article above dont do NLP justice. There seems to be some misconception there regarding what NLP is. First and foremost, NLP is a communication technique. Second, as my teacher puts it, NLP is “the study of the structure of the subjective”.
As a technique of communication it states, in different words, not much more than what Aristoteles said when he wrote his Rhetoric some 2000 years ago: First, there is a speaker, a message and a listener or public. Second, depending on the message and the listeners, the speaker must discern how he says what he wants to say so that it is understood in the way he wants it to be understood. NLP would say that you are responsible to ensure that your message is understood. What sets NLP apart from classic rhetoric is that it states that communication is more than just words, and it gives its practitioners effective methods and techniques to communicate.
The reason why NLP is of obvious interest to the inhabitants of tinfoil hat land is because of the connections attributed to many of the founders of NLP, and because it lends heavily from hypnosis and makes heavy use of induction of trance states and suggestion. Erickson, Bateson, Grinder, Bandler (and others) are said to have been connected with the various MK projects in the 1960s and 1970s, and much of their work was supposedly financed by various spook agencies. I find it interesting, to say the least, to see the names of the NLP founders quoted in connection with the infamous MK projects, child ritual abuse, induction of multiple personality disorder, satanism, occultism, LSD, Aldous Huxley, Leary, Scientology …
As a result of my own observations I am inclined to opine that NLP is, in part, a rediscovery and formalization of various techniques of communication used since antiquity by religious institutions for their own purposes. I conjecture that. over the millenia, monks have discovered and refined subtle methods of influencing people, what would be one of the secrets behind their undeniable power in all societies of which I am aware. And that is exactly what “occult” means: something hidden. In this case, an effective technique which gives certain groups an advantage over the rest, hidden for a long time until it was rediscovered or reinvented outside of the walls of monasteries.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:22 am
nlp, while my favorite thing, is nothing new. the methods of nlp are innate in the way we communicate. i have a friend who is a master covert hypnotist yet i am fairly certain he came about his art intuitively. the jesiuts are master nlpers. i gew up with one and my study of nlp has answered a lot of my questions regarding my father`s way of communicating. i have become convinced that my father was unaware of his methods.
nlp and hypnosis are interchangeable. parts of one are the other.
the validity of a communicated message is in how it`s understood. that is the only validity in nlp. it is important to learn how to communicate but it is critical to see how what you are saying is recieved. it is a relationship.
July 18th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
[…] for it’s own sake. I find myself drawn increasingly to the approach that fields like Neuro-Linguistic Programming take; they say, “we don’t have a theory& […]