From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Unpleasantness re: inner child discussion
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:04:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr9.150451.21431
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <167C4936A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.013224.19962@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>
>
>>Well I would be damned pleased to see some clinical psychologists do some
>>rigorous studies to test the claims that NLP makes.  (There are in fact a
>>few such studies.  Many too few, in my opinion.)  I don't in the least
>>blame academics for being highly skeptical of these claims.  What does
>>bother me though is the INDIFFERENCE by the clinical establishment to
>>such claims.

>>NLP claims, for instance, that a simple phobia can be cured in one
>>session.

Cynical aside: what's their definition of a "simple phobia"?  Is it one
that can be cured in a single session?

>  It claims that the same technique will neutralize traumatic
>>memories just as quickly, so that PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome)
>>becomes an easily treatable problem.  

That's a HUGE claim, especially considering the vast variety and
intensity of traumas, and the long time periods over which PTSD can
manifest itself.  I hope you take this one with salt.

>It claims that certain other anxiety
>>disorders, such as compulsions and performance anxiety, can also be
>>cured in one or two sessions.  There are a very large number of NLP
>>I'm not a psychologist.  But I am a scientist who has spent twenty years
>>doing publishable research (in mathematics) at universities.  I do think
>>I have a little sense of what sorts of things are of scientific interest
>>and worthy of investigation.

Why?  Is mathematics a science?  8-)

>  And it doesn't require any commitment or
>>investing any enormous amount of time and energy to look through a few
>>books or watch a few videotapes.

None of which contstitutes clinical research, of course.  Watching the
videotapes alone will tell you only what the therapist is doing, and
very little about whom s/he's doing it to/with.  And THAT's the key.

> Your post makes a lot of sense to me.  NLP makes some very testable
>predictions.  You don't need a clinical psychologist to test these ideas.

Sure you do!

How, I wonder, are you going to determine which subjects had which
complaints, and to what degree, *before* treatment?  How will you
compare "before" and "after" states objectively?

Clinical diagnosis is, to put it mildly, not grammar-school material.

>You are a scientist. 

Huh?  Lee is a MATHEMATICIAN.  

> You know many practitioners, apparently.  Why not
>design and conduct the study for yourself.

Because Lee's not qualified to diagnose the problems (or otherwise
assess the mental states) of others.  Unless the crucial variable is a
self-statement of the type "I do/don't feel better", with no other
evidence (especially wrt how badly people felt *beforehand*), the study
is unlikely to tell us much.

Moreover, there are matters of confidentiality involved here.  Just how
would this study be conducted?  

>You mentioned a few studies.  What are they, where were they published,
>and how might others get copies?  The whole area of determining if a
>therapy "works" is difficult for ethical and logistical reasons, but
>I'm open to see if a given treatment can "cure" a phobia in one trial.

I should point out here that *many* short-term interventions can produce
positive results of this sort.  Not necessarily in one session, mind
you, but things like biofeedback and clinical hypnosis (from which NLP 
is derived, btw, to a large extent: Milton Erickson is the godfather
--not entirely willingly, I might add -- of NLP) have often achieved
similar results.

And clinical data is *not* lacking there.

>If true, it would be a major breakthough of course, and that's why
>you may run into some flak from "academic types".

Not to mention from "stereo types."

>  That and your
>tendency to say things like "You're stepping on your lines" and
>"You ought to watch a stand up comedian" to a therapist who, by your
>admission was helpful, but just not to your NLP predilections.

FAR more important would be studies that considered questions like:

-- which complaints does NLP (or XYZ) alleviate most successfully?

-- which populations respond best?  Is NLP-success related to
intelligence?  Age?  Socioeconomic status?  Educational level?  Ethnic
group?  

Remember: all therapists, and all books about therapy, talk about the
successes.  How many even give the success RATE?  How many discuss the
failures at all?

(One classic here: M. Scott Peck's _People of the Lie_, in which he
finds a creative way of writing off his therapeutic failures: call them
"evil".  Period.)

Roger