Roger Sofraover
"For those of you searching foe scientific or empirical evidence that NLP (or indeed Transactional Analysis which was not the predecessor to NLP) works, then just like any science of the mind, you wont find any. Just like any personality tools like Myers Briggs, SDI etc all we have to go on is that the theory seems to be pretty close to the real results we achieve."
First of all, NLP is not a science of the mind. Like 'Dianetics', it is a pseudoscience. Psychology is a science and is all about empirical evidence. The 'real results' NLP achieves (the same claim is made of homeopathy) should be testable scientifically. They should be reliable and valid.
The claims made by NLP about representations systems are quite extraordinary. Not only are they antitheoretical, they have been largely falsified. Bandler and Grinder's ideas about eye movements and representativonal systems have been thoroughly discredited by research and have no scientific support.
"NLP is not a rehash of old ideas. It is brand new and Psychiatrist's hate it."
Actually NLP is a bit of a rehash - it was based on observation of three psychotherapists. It is not brand new, having been born in the 1970s. And psychiatrists probably don't even think about it. They work more at the level of drug treatments for (usually) serious conditions. If psychologists dislike it, then it is because it is unscientific.
I despair when aviation safety reduced to the level of a pseudoscience. What we are really talking about is effective communication - that's all! No buzzwords required.
Last edited by HigherSights; 8th Apr 2009 at 08:55.
Reason: sp