From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Unpleasantness re: inner child discussion
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:50:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.005502.28322@news.Hawaii.Edu> 
lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.150451.21431@Princeton.EDU> 
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>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:
>>>

>>>>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.

>My hope is that academics and those committed to a scientific point of
>view will not make quick judgements on a claim before becoming familiar
>with the facts.  I don't know whether in fact the claim that PTSD can be
>dealt with facilely is justified or not.  I am convinced, however, that
>anyone who investigates the use of the Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure in
>connection with PTSD will learn some very valuable things. 

Such as? Remember: "anyone" includes quite a lot of people...

> This is my
>personal opinion, obviously not unbiased, and is certainly not evidence.
>I suggest it as an opportunity for scientists to do some important
>scientific investigation.  

Well, fine.  Now, remember that there's LOTS of scientific investigation
available to be done, and only a limited number of scientists to do it.
Moreover, NLP seems to hold fairly tightly to its therapists, so
establishing a connection between them and the data-collection mechanism
might be difficult.  (Also a problem with psychoanalysis and other
"movements.")

Finally, note the problems and disincentives.  If one actually designs
an investigation and comes up with a less-than-positive result, one is
likely to get a bunch of NLP people one one's tail telling one that one
didn't do it right.  

There are thousands of therapies out there.  Many resemble one another
quite a bit.  Studying each one as a separate phenomenon is highly
problematic, especially given what we know about the importance of the
individual therapist.

>Since the Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure takes only ten minutes or so, a
>practicing therapist can investigate it more informally with his own
>clients.  Admittedly, the results of such informal usage won't be
>science, but I think the clients will be nonetheless grateful.

Again, how different is it from other behavioral treatments of phobia?
Also, is "grateful" what we're after?  Has NLP ever done *any* follow-up
studies after one or two or five years?  

In short: why should a therapist who ALREADY knows how to handle simple
phobias (they include all but agoraphobia AND social phobia, btw; I
looked it up together with my wife...) with a pretty fair success rate
want to do this?  

Lee, you seem to have this slightly bogeymannish model of non-NLP
therapists, that has them acting "according to the book," and having
their "warmth" and "humaneness" trained out of them.  That just ain't so
on either count.

Most therapists do what works.  EVERY successful therapist is eclectic
as all get-out when it comes down to, um, cases.  True, the *reports* of
successful therapy may attept to put things in a unitary theoretical
framework, and to obscure the messy details, but it doesn't really
happen that way.  Shrinks who don't adapt, become extinct.  By client
attrition. 

>>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.

>In that case, it would seem that the NLP claims are not so implausible
>after all.  When people argue on both sides of the fence like this ("NLP
>can't do what it claims to because problems just aren't this simple" and

I think the argument is more along the lines of: NLP has never
substantiated its claims, and the burden of proof is, after all, on
them.  And given the number of "miracle cures" we've seen in the past,
this is hardly unreasonable...

>"We don't need NLP because other things work just as well") I begin to
>suspect that the real issue is something other than the arguments being
>presented.  

Why?  I think both are good arguments: we're lacking evdence for this
specific therapy's wonderfulness, and we're lacking evidence of its
specificity.

>Ericksonian hypnosis, incidentally, is an offshoot of NLP.  Steve

OK: sorry.  I meant: "Erickson's approach to hypnosis, etc."  I had
forgotten that there are some post-NLP'ers out there calling themselves
Ericksonians.  

>Gilligan was part of the original NLP group at Santa Cruz.  The original
>NLP group had a lot conversations with Erickson, who did his best to
>teach them his approaches.  However Erickson did not approve of reducing
>what he did to recipes and for that reason to the extent that NLP is
>Erickson's child I am sure that he was not a totally approving father. 

Indeed.  He made some cynical remarks about the NLP folks on one or two
occasions.

>>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?  

>I am very pleased that you raise these issues in this newsgroup which is
>read by the very academics who are able to carry out this sort of study.
>I agree that these are very important questions.  I'm not really
>interested in arguing about whether NLPers have been irresponsible in
>not investigating them in a serious way.  The point is that the failure
>of NLPers to address these questions in a way that is acceptable to the
>clinical psychology community has provided an enormous OPPORTUNITY for
>academics who have the imagination to recognize it. 

"The imagination to recognize it."  I like that.  Sound so much better
than, "who see things our way."  8-)

Toruble is, many academics HAVE studied it, and haven't found anything
sufficiently verifiable or distinctive, and have the problem of the
personality of the NLPers to contend with.

> Just think of all
>the mileage Herbert Benson at Harvard got out of studying a watered-down
>version of Transcendental Meditation.  

Nu? Was it worth it?  8-)

>>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?

>This is an important point.  However, it's also important not to let
>statistics be used to bury scientifically important data.  If the success
>rate of a particular approach is only 5%, the facile conclusion to be
>drawn is that this approach is not really very good.  But the much more
>interesting and valuable question is:  What can be learned by looking at
>those clients in the 5% where the approach did work?  Can we learn
>something from that 5% that will enable us to develop a therapy that will
>be more effective?  Or can we find a predictor that will enable us to
>identify in advance the type of client that this approach will be
>successful with.  

Of course.  But that sort of issue emerges directly from any study that
has a good baseline.  What makes you think that psychological research
is likely to be so "facile"?  

Besides, for some complaints, 5% success is *excellent.*

>There's also the question of cost/benefit ratio.  If a technique takes
>only ten minutes (or, maybe more realistically, thirty when one includes
>preliminary conversation and subsequent evaluation) it's worth using even
>with a 5% success rate if the alternative is months of therapy.  

Assuming it doesn't affect what follows in those 95%...and that the 5%
who are served in this way are not the 5% who would have gotten better
anyway.  Rmember that people DO change over time, sometimes quite
without apparent reason.

Also, "months of therapy" isn't all *that* horrible, either.  Three
months: what's that, 12 weekly sessions?  A decent diagnosis can take
several sessions.

Roger