From: wilkman@med.unc.edu (Alice Wilkman)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (FAQ)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.211538.15550@newstand.syr.edu>
 mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline) writes:

>In article <DLB.92Dec11131331@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
 dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>>>   Additionally, last spring, Charles Faulkner, NLP Trainer, offered a
>>>   day of his services to demonstrate the cure if someone else would
>>>   supply the clients and write the paper.  (This fall, when I posted
>>>   a query about that offer, I did receive a response from a
>>>   statistician who volunteered his services in the case that I heard
>>>   anything.  I heard nothing else from that query.)
>
>>This is a MUCH better experiment, and I would be glad to hear its
>>results.  (Note: without more information, I don't know if it is a
>>really good one).

>If NLP advocates really want NLP to be taken seriously, they are going
>to have to do considerably better than this.  So Faulkner is a
>charismatic therapist, does a mind-blowing demonstration, so what?  Its
>like Uri Geller at SRI bending spoons.  Why can't (or why don't) NLP
>advocates take some pieces of the theory and subject them to reasonable
>experiment, and verify its claims with some basic outcome research?
>They say, in effect: "it works, you prove it."  If you wanna be in the
>mainstream, you gotta know how to swim. 

I will respond to this because it was my lack of precision
in selecting my words that has led to the confusion.  Dave
responded, I think, to what I meant, while Mark has
responded to what I said.

I did not mean demonstration in the sense that Faulkner
would put on a show, i.e., get up in front of an audience
and, using a subject, demonstrate the technique.  I and many
others have seen that done and while interesting and even
possibly effective, it is basically a stage trick.

I do not believe that is what Faulkner offered to do in this
specific case.

What I meant was that Faulkner, a skilled NLP practitioner,
would, in a clinical setting, meet with x number of persons
who had been identified by standard psychiatric/psychologic
diagnostic techniques as having a phobia, he would then
"demonstrate" his skill, i.e., perform the Fast Phobia Cure
with each patient.  The effectiveness of the treatment would
then be assessed using standard techniques for
effectiveness.

The number of people he would be able to work with in one
day, given the brevity of the treatment, I think would be
sufficient to serve as a pilot study at least.  Ideally,
several groups would be identified and matched so that
various other treatment regimens and no treatment groups
could be compared in the study.

Mark is an academic psychiatrist, I would be interested in
knowing what kind of clinical trial of the NLP Phobia Cure
he would consider to be worthwhile or if he considers it so
completely without merit that it should not even be
considered as one limb of a clinical trial.

I will add that I think Gordon Banks identified a natural
group who might be studied, i.e., people with mild to
moderate claustrophobia who need to have MRIs done.  I don't
know what is done with this group now, if anything, but if
the NLP Cure works and is easily taught, it does seem that
it might be quite a cost effective tool in that setting.

It even seems to me that, outrageous as this may sound,  Lee
Lady might be an ideal person to pursue that idea since he
is a NLP Master Practitioner (x2), a scientist, and an
experienced volunteer.  I feel certain that the problem is
not confined to Pittsburgh.

But, I am no expert in designing clinical trials and do not
know what standards are used in psychiatry/psychology for
testing of treatment regimens.

It seemed like a good faith offer on the part of Faulkner 
and I hated to just watch it sink into the deep from 
lack of reasonable attention.

Alice Wilkman