> You've skipped pretty much most of my argument,

Well, it wasn't very good...

Frankly, comparing NLP to Scientology or homeopathy is silly.

> but I'll humour you nonetheless.

I appreciate it.

This isn't my first rodeo talking to scientific skeptics about NLP. Like I said, usually the best I can hope for it that the person I'm talking to is willing to admit they don't have any first-person experience with NLP. (They never do.)

It's not like I'm going to start a formal research program myself, eh?

Nor is reading a science paper purporting to debunk NLP going to cause a relapse of my old depression, eh?
(God I hope not! Now that would be some foul magic, eh?)

> There's no such thing as science being out of the loop.

I don't understand what you mean. You're obviously not trying to say that science knows everything already, yeah?

Consider the evolution of the field of Chemistry: it started as the pre-scientific investigation of the properties of matter we call Alchemy (which was shunned and even illegal in many places and times) and gradually became systematized into Chemistry, a proper science. Psychology is in the middle of this transition from an alchemical body of knowledge into a systematic science. NLP is the forefront of that process, the cutting edge. It's the first systematic, rigourous, repeatable school of psychology in human history. It's kind of a big deal.

> if you're pushing this unverified "technology" as a cure for depression, you're doing something dangerous and immoral.

Ah! Let me be clear: I am not "pushing [NLP] as a cure for depression" and if it seemed that way I misspoke.

One of the primary inventors of this "technology" did cure me of depression in a single session of hypnosis lasting no more than ten minutes. I am aware of how outlandish that sounds. Nevertheless, it's true. (And I'm sure my "miraculous" cure is not even in the top 100 of his most amazing interventions.)

I don't see the danger or immorality of sharing my story.

> ... does not mean it's an alternative to evidence-based, and tested methods.

Sure it is! It works. There's lots of evidence and it's been tested over and over again all over the world.

The problem here isn't that NLP is unverified. I verify it. The problem is that the folks who call themselves scientific psychologists evidently can't even begin to understand it well enough to study it!

>> If they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish

> Consider if the scientific community; a group who has studied everything from astral projection, to the reaction that created the atom bomb;

It's not one group, eh? To be clear, I trust physicists (in re: physics) more than I trust my mother.

> has been unable to replicate the anecdotal results, that it's possible the anecdotal results are caused by confounding factors.

Sure it's possible. But it's wildly unlikely.

At this point (2023) we're talking about millions of people using this stuff everyday vs. a handful of "scientists" who somehow can't replicate these simple techniques and patterns that (again!) millions of normal everyday people can! It's very weird.

> The power of "I want to believe" is very strong.

Er, kind of a tangent but one of the discoveries of NLP is the formal subjective structure of belief. The upshot of that is that you can literally rewrite your beliefs as you see fit. So yeah, I don't "want to believe", I believe what I want. Part of the reason I am so committed to empiricism is that I can't rely on belief.

> > That can't be true.

> But it is.

Let's not descend to "yeah huh" and "nah uh", eh? I know that some scientific psychologists have published some papers, but there has to be some error or incompetence. That's the only possibility (in my world view.)

> From a 2010 meta-analysis:

Got a link?

I'm going to tear though the abstract you quoted, and then go look for this paper. (I can do this all day. I am right, and this is important. I have infinite time and patience for this discussion.)

> The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept.

Right! That's the problem!

> The article presents the concept of NLP

First error: "NLP" is not a single concept. "Neurolinguistic Programming" is a catch-all term for a whole constellation of models and techniques, as well as the attitude and methods that evolved the models and techniques.

> in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base.

I've never heard of "the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base". I'll look it up, or do you have a link or more context?

> From among 315 articles

On NLP?

> the author selected 63 studies

By what criteria?

> published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI.

What's the ISI?

> Out of 33 studies,

Are there links to these individual studies? I don't have access to science journals.

> 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results.

I'd really like to see the individual papers. Without looking at them there's nothing constructive I can say.

> The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.

Right, so to me that just means that the science was done poorly. That's all. I know NLP works, so from my POV the problem must be with the methods of investigation.

> 18% is statistically insignificant.

I'm not a statistician, but it's not important. If you're willing to stick around and talk about it I'm more than willing to go through each and every one of those 33 or 63 or 315 studies and give my considered opinion of what they might have been doing wrong. Like I said in the other comment, I'm not a scientist nor an NLP expert, but for what it's worth (which might not be much) I'm willing to read the studies and tell you what I think.

> Frankly, I'm glad you were able to overcome your depression.

Cheers! It's hard to overstate how badly off I was. As you no doubt know, it can be hard for people who don't suffer from something like that to understand what you're going through. I remember one point in high school my mom turned to me and said, "I know you're not faking this because no one would ever deliberately be this miserable." (It was more comforting than it sounds.)

> Really, the fact that you did this speaks more to your strength as a person than the strength of NLP.

No. It doesn't. The fact that I was never suicidal speaks to my strength as a person.

The fact that Dr. Bandler cured me of depression in ten minutes speaks to the strength of his invention NLP.

> Overcoming depression isn't easy

Except it was. It took less than ten minutes. I didn't even have to do anything, I was in trance, just sitting there. Subjectively the process took only moments. It was only afterward that someone told that it had been about ten minutes. I've had farts that were more difficult!

It behooves us to pay attention to this fellow, eh?

> it's something I have also struggled with.

I'm so sorry. It's not something I would wish on anyone.

> Rather than credit this, I think you should be crediting yourself.

I know, but that's because you're wrong about NLP being bunk. It really was the world-class hypnotherapist who cured me.

I do credit myself with going to see Dr. Bandler!

Seriously, I had to do a lot of work on myself (using NLP) before I could even go to a therapist at all, and then I went to several in a row, who each helped but not enough. Eventually a relative died and I inherited enough money to afford to go see Bandler. If I hadn't, who knows... It's not worth thinking about.

Well met!