From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: Psychology (not unlike whatever we were talking about)
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Summary: Yes, academic psychology does have a responsibility to investigate.
Keywords:  NLP   NeuroLinguistic Programming
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:53:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.030832.18382@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Gary Murphy writes:
>>> if psychology is worth anything, psychologists should be saying to
>>> B&G "Very nice observation! Ingenious apparatus!  Can you try this
>>> here? My bet is it won't work in this case
>> And should they be saying this to the phrenologists, too?
>    ... 
>Phrenology was hardly unique.  History shows us a large number and
>delightful variety of worthless assessment, diagnosis, counseling,
>treatment, and self improvement methods.  They spring up all over,
>some become popular, some stay popular, some don't.  Phrenology is
>handy because it didn't.  Thus without controversy we can ask: should
>its claims be taken seriously?  Do academics have a responsibility to
>study them?  To disprove them?  If so, why?

In my opinion, academics in certain areas of clinical psychology do have
an obligation to study some of the claims made by NLP.  There exists, for
instance, a small industry in the treatment of anxiety disorders,
especially panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and
post-traumatic stress syndrome.  And I can't help but wonder how those
involved in the study and treatment of such disorders can look at
themselves in the mirror in the morning and have self-respect, knowing
that they may be putting their patients through unwarranted expense and
agony by being unwilling to try a few extremely simple NLP techniques.  

(I don't claim to know whether such techniques as the phobia/trauma
cure, the compulsion blow-out [a refinement of "flooding"], the swish
pattern and six-step reframing would be effective with patients with
full blown anxiety disorders.  But considering that these are all
single-session treatments, I find it shocking that nobody who treats such
patients has tried these techniques out.)  

Your proponent-skeptic model makes a lot of sense in a situation where
there is competition for scientific credit, where there is a contest
between parties whose career success depend in large part on the number
of published articles they can credit to their name.  And who are
employed by institutions who provide support for their research.

In the case of NLP, though, conventional clinical psychology is cutting
off its nose to spite its face in taking the skeptical position, in
saying "They're your claims, it's up to you to prove them."  By not
investigating the claims of NLP, clinical psychology is in the position
of offering a great number of its clients an inferior product.  (In my
opinion, of course.  And I believe that my opinion would be confirmed
by a survey of subjects who have experience both NLP and more
conventional therapies.)  And so people who are not satisfied with
therapists who give them loads of insight into why they have their
problems without enabling them to solve those problems  wind up
going to someone who "does NLP," someone who may have no education at
all in academic psychology and knows nothing about mental illness.

I think it's unfortunate that people have to make that kind of choice.  I
hope that my articles will help promote the day when every clinical
psychology program will teach at least the most basic NLP techniques.
And that at least some programs will go beyond the level of techniques
and teach such things as language patterns, setting well-formed outcomes
in therapy, and gathering information in a structured way.  (Maybe it's
time for me to repost my set of four articles on the principles of
changework.)  

--
It is a poor sort of skepticism which merely delights in challenging
those claims which conflict with one's own belief system.  
                                                          --Bogus quote 
lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu         lady@uhunix.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.psychology