From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: NLP a psychoactive drug here?
Followup-To: sci.psychology
Summary: Science is inquiry, not authority.  
Keywords:  NLP  NeuroLinguistic Programming
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:09:31 GMT


In article <IegoDum00WBOE1NrYW@andrew.cmu.edu> sean+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden) writes:
>David Sternlight writes
>>I've just returned from reading Sci.psychology
>           ^^^^^^^^
>Drat!
>
>>I note that there is an extended discussion of aspects of NLP there,
>>and I've seen no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or any of the
>>nastiness that's present here. In fact, I've seen some writers who here

David just dropped into sci.psychology on one of the more boring days.
There's no shortage of nastiness in that group and anyone who wants to
discuss NLP there had better get used to it.  

(On a purely personal note, I went through elementary school as a little
boy with the last name Lady, so I had to learn to take name-calling in my
stride at an early age.)  

>Science is, by its very nature, argumentative. We are only able to refine
>our ideas about the world through discussion, criticism, and the ability to
>distinguish between what we wish were true and what we demonstrate to be
>true. The person who is not able to accept criticism should not be a scientist
>for a scientist's truth is the veracity of the theory, not the recognition of
>the individual. If I were about to misapply or mistreat another human being
>who had come to me for medical assistance I would cringe at the thought of
>being criticized, corrected, or chastised. Better that I am able to defend
>my treatment of the patient than that I do the wrong thing.
>
>By the same token, also, the reputation of the individual matters little to
>the question of the truth of the idea. Many well respected, well published
>scientists and theorists have been wrong. Some devastatingly so. Frequently
>we see postings here which tell attempt to validate a treatment on he basis
>of the reputation of the advocates. This is not science! This is not medicine!

Sean, you are indeed refreshing!  It seems like sci.med (and also
sci.psychology) is full of people who consider themselves scientists but
who regard science as a matter of authority rather than inquiry.  Speaking 
for myself, I have a lot of respect for medical science and I don't mind
being told when I'm wrong about something, since I'm not expert in the
field.  (No kidding!)  But "I'm an authority and you're full of shit, so
sit down and shut up" is not an answer that convinces me.  I've lived
long enough to see many statements made by medical authorities in very
categorical fashion later turn out to be either just flat wrong
or highly questionable.  ("The only important consideration in losing
weight is the total number of calories you consume."  "Nobody who eats
a reasonable diet can derive any possible benefit from taking vitamin
supplements."  It wasn't that long ago when it was commonplace to see
these statements in places like the Harvard Medical School Health
Letter.)

>You mistake criticism of the individual with criticism of the idea. To the
>extent that you personalize an idea, you are bound to be personally offended
>by criticism of the idea but this criticism is not directed at you as a person
>and is not ad hominem (unlike the remarks which you, yourself, posted and then
>retracted).

When somebody says "I don't know the first thing about these alternative
approaches but I know they're no good because I met one of these
alternative people once and it was obvious that all he cared about was
raking in lots of money" I do not consider that to be a scientific
judgement.  

I just retook the NLP Master Practitioner training this summer in
Colorado (for perhaps quixotic reasons) and I thought it was nice that
two of the trainers thought it important to say "Remember, we made all
this stuff up.  We don't know if it's true or not.  All we know is that
it seems to work."  I wish that some of the experts in sci.med would
manifest the same sort of skepticism about their own treasured beliefs.

If NLP or any alternative approach are ever going to become part of the
mainstream then they have to be able to withstand informed, intelligent
criticism.  "Believe me because I saw Tony Robbins perform miracles" is
not going to convince many people.  On the other hand, I still can't see
why it's unscientific to urge people to TRY IT OUT and see for themselves
whether it works -- either on themselves or their clients/patients.  

>Science is, by its very nature, argumentative. We are only able to refine
>our ideas about the world through discussion, criticism, and the ability to
>distinguish between what we wish were true and what we demonstrate to be
>true. The person who is not able to accept criticism should not be a scientist

It's like arguing with fundamentalist Christians, though.  You talk about
argument and criticism, Sean, but all I hear is dogma.  "You have no
empirical studies."   ("But accepting Jesus into your heart is the only
way you can be saved.")  I agree.  I have no empirical studies.  I'm a
sinner -- and an unrepentant one at that!  All I have is simple
techniques that you can try out for yourself.  Come over to
sci.psychology and you can read about them at no charge.

I have been posting articles on NLP for four years now, hoping to see
some real discussion and criticism about it from people who know
something about academic psychology.  My purpose is not to generate
clients for myself.  I seldom actually "do NLP" anymore, and when I do
I don't charge money for it.  I am also not trying to encourage people
to take NLP seminars.  I don't even think that NLP trainings are
appropriate for most people other than therapists.

I do hope that I can encourage some scientific and clinical psychologists
to find out about the ideas in NLP and see if some of these ideas are
useful to them.  These ideas would then become part of the mainstream, in
transformed fashion, and eventually the result would be that there
would no longer be such a thing as NLP.  

I also want very much to encourage therapists to learn about NLP and try
some of it out.  I encourage researchers to do empirical research on
NLP, but I'm not about to do it myself.  I'm a mathematician and doing
clinical trials in psychology is just not a priority with me.  

But given the commitment of medical science and clinical psychology 
to a methodology which is slow and expensive, I think that when it comes
to techniques which are as simple and quick as many of the NLP
interventions, it is foolish for a therapist to wait years until rigorous
empirical research has been done.  Especially since psychotherapy is, in
the opinion of many, much more of an art than a science.  

I believe that it only makes sense for a therapist to try a few of these
techniques out on his own clients and see what results he gets.  I hope
that as I continue to post articles in sci.psychology about what NLP
actually is, as it exists today, some therapists will come to agree with 
me.  

But I do have to admit that there's a lot to NLP besides techniques, a
lot that I can't really teach on usenet.  And to learn this, a
therapist does need to take training.  And yes, NLP trainings are
expensive.  About $2,000 for a 22 day training.  But I don't know of
any self-supporting organization that can offer classes more cheaply.

--
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