Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/HeadleyDown related

message: Note: This page is for information on items that are presently missing, or potentially misrepresented, in the article. It is not a discussion page. Please discuss on the talk page as usual which will mean there is a record of it in the usual place. FT2 14:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

message: The article says that "The British Psychological Society classes NLP as 'quintessential charlatanry' ". In fact this is diametrically incorrect. 
:The Society not only rates NLP as sufficient standing to mention in their biographies  but also refer interested users to the UK Council for Psychotherapy, who are interested in finding an NLP therapist, grouping it together with Psychoanalysis, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and Hypnotherapy which are also not part of their remit  (The BPS is more psychoanalytically oriented judging by its board)
:Indeed the British Psychological Society reports that in 2001 its NorthWest Chapter has held an NLP introduction event for its members. "This one-day event is aimed at psychologists, consultants, HR professionals, counsellors and students, or anyone with an interest in the practice and application of NLP."
Further, the British Psychological Society's 4th Annual Continuing Education Program (CEP) conference included a keynote speaker Leanne Harris (University of Hertfordshire) entitled "Exploring the use of neuro-linguistic programming as a first person methodology: Studying the use of imagery in changing the quality of experience". Its abstract reads:
:"After years of being dominated by 3rd person objective research methods, there are now calls within psychology for a shift in this perspective to one which embraces both objective and subjective ways of knowing as equally valid and inextricably linked in the search for the understanding of human experience and behaviour... In particular, the workshop will draw on methods which have been developed outside academic psychology but which appear to have much to offer as an approach to exploring subjective experience, namely neuro-linguistic programming. NLP claims to be the study of the structure of experience. It makes use of questioning techniques which do not make assumptions about the content of experience, but rather seek to elicit the structure of the experience and how that structure affects the quality of an individual's experience. The workshop will incorporate an experiential elicitation session based on the NLP sensory sub-modalities model... The session will conclude with a discussion of the applicability of such techniques for psychology research."
Further again, at the end of 2004, the British Psychological Society has awarded its prestigious Level B accreditation to CDA for its new psychometric test, CDAQ. British Psychological Society Level B accreditation is widely recognised as a clear benchmark standard, and CDA is now one of a limited number of companies accredited by the BPS to run Level B training: 
:"CDAQ, which represents a new approach to personality testing based on cognitive psychology and neurolinguistic programming (NLP), has undergone several years of rigorous empirical testing. This was undertaken with the cooperation an extensive range of private and public sector organisations, including Toyota GB, Alpha Airports Group, Northern Foods and Essex County Council. The CDAQ psychometric test has been successfully applied in various scenarios, including training, recruitment, personal development, teambuilding and coaching, with users reporting that it is able to accurately identify thinking and behavioural preferences in their employees and recruitment candidates." 
:CDAQ’s Technical Director states: "When we explored the NLP phenomenon and the notion of metaprogrammes, we found solid ideas supported by robust psychological theory which provided a sound basis for understanding peoples’ behaviour and thinking." 
:Forgive me if this doesn't sound totally like the BPS hold NLP to be "quintessential quackery." Whatever the source, it seems clear this information is diametrically in error.
::Hi FT2.  BPS is a huge body of psychologists and its job is to promote meetings etc.  Take a look at their annuals.  Their are a whole bunch of psychotherapists who talk about how NLP is total bunk, and regret having registered with their courses etc.  The amount of criticism by psychotherapists about the BPS and other such bodies promoting pseudoscience (including EMDR, TFT, primal scream therapy, and even dianetics) is incredibly harsh.  They hate it and bodies such as the BPS have induced mass boycott by lots of psychotherapists who know that NLP is pseudoscience.  Pretty funny huh? DaveRight 03:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's funnier is that in the article, the BPS can do no wrong, they are a professional and reputable body cited as condemning NLP as quackery. But now they are shown to be positively inclined to NLP, all of a sudden the BPS is untrustworthy, has induced "mass boycotts" and "hate" and an "incredibly harsh" amount of criticism. It seems DR has once again invented or "spun" facts to suit a POV, because I've seen none of that. Either way the point stands, that the BPS was knowingly misrepresented. Do you want to add to the BPS or NLP article that they have induced boycotts etc? I don't think you do..... you know the response you'd get. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British Psychological Society

message: So I looked up the UK Council for Psychotherapy. They are the umbrella accrediting body for psychotherapy in the UK:
:In 1994 the ANLP (British NLP association) Professional and Counselling Services was awarded a representative on the Governing Board of the UK Council for Psychotherapy . It continues to be a member organization in good standing of that body at the present time. NLPtca.com website and UKCP 2005 members list PDF
::The more recent papers and books on NLP criticise such boards for encouraging pseudoscience within psychotherapy (eg Eisner 2000).  DaveRight 03:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Such boards". Do they specifically criticise this one, for NLP, or generally any boards, for anything "pseudoscientific". There's little evidence that this is representative. In the meantime the one indisputable fact is, both these two credible UK bodies are supportive of NLP in the profession. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Council for Psychotherapy

message: Carroll (2003) is portrayed in the article as research. In fact it is an opinion entry, for a skeptic's website. It is not at all clear how Carroll's neutrality as a source is assured. It is written in a somewhat sarcastic tone, and at times grossly misinformed. This, and his final paragraph, indicate it is a form of argument from ignorance:
:"...when someone tells me that the way I squeeze my nose during a conversation means I am signaling him that I think his idea stinks, how do we verify whether his interpretation is correct or not? I deny it. He knows the structure, he says. He knows the meaning. I am not aware of my signal or of my feelings, he says, because the message is coming from my subconscious mind. How do we test these kinds of claims? We can't. What's his evidence? It must be his brilliant intuitive insight because there is no empirical evidence to back up this claim. Sitting cross-armed at a meeting might not mean that someone is 'blocking you out' or 'getting defensive'..."
::(These are not NLP methods or approaches at all. This is straw man)
:"While I do not doubt that many people benefit from NLP training sessions, there seem to be several false or questionable assumptions upon which NLP is based. Their beliefs about the unconscious mind, hypnosis and the ability to influence people by appealing directly to the subconscious mind are unsubstantiated... You cannot learn to 'speak directly to the unconscious mind' as Erickson and NLP claim, except in the most obvious way of using the power of suggestion." 
::(but see Cheek research above which did just that)
:The article's conclusion is that: "This is not to say that the techniques won't work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn't matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether it works. However, how do you measure the claim "NLP works"? I don't know and I don't think NLPers know, either. [...]"
Thus out of the sources cited as "scientific research", we find that three stated in their paper or book, a belief that NLP may well work but that scientific measurement of this is unsupported at present, additionally, one had falsified credentials, one is a writer for a sceptics site and non-neutral, .....
::Carroll writes books on warning undergraduate psychologists about the nonsense that pervades the self help section of bookstores etc.  Carroll's treatment of NLP reflects what most people think of NLP.  Just a bunch of pseudoscientific/pseudospiritual nonsense.  DaveRight 03:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that comment of DR's about wraps it up. "Most people" think that? No... thats an editor's personal view masquerading as a weasel. And as pointed out, for a riter, Carroll is remarkable poorly informed on several readily verifiable matters noted, and writes with a straw man. He may be an author. He is not a researcher much less a scientific researcher writing peer reviewed articles. He is yet again an example of "Dave cites this critical and ill-informed author as a "researcher", but don't cite any NLP researchers who are professionally reported". Thats too far from neutral, Dave. FT2 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carroll (2003)