Neurolinguistic programming

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neurolinguistic programming is a pseudoscientific way of communicating, created in the 1970s. It is often shortened to NLP. The discipline assumes there is a link between neurological processes, language and behavior. According to NLP, it is possible to achieve certain goals in life by changing one's behaviour.[1][2] Certain neuroscientists[3] psychologists[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] believe that NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence and that it uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts.

NLP was invented by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. According to these people, NLP can help solve problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders.

Reviews of empirical research on NLP show that NLP contains many factual errors.[8][9] It did not produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’ developers and proponents.[5][10] According to Devilly,[11] NLP is no longer as common as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP has pseudoscientific characteristics,[11] title,[3] concepts and terminology.[6][12] One example where NLP is used as pseudoscience is to make the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level easier.[7][13][14] NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[5] In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross | display-authors = etal (2006) [12] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross | display-authors = etal (2010)[15] list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.[16]

References[change | change source]

  1. Tosey, P. & Mathison, J., (2006) "Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming Archived 2019-01-03 at the Wayback Machine Centre for Management Learning & Development, School of Management, University of Surrey.
  2. Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Delozier, J., and Bandler, R. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0-916990-07-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. 3.0 3.1 Corballis, MC., "Are we in our right minds?" In Sala, S., (ed.) (1999), Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons. ISBN 0-471-98303-9 (pp. 25–41) see page p.41
  4. Drenth P J D (1999). "Prometheus chained: Social and ethical constraints on psychology". European Psychologist. 4 (4): 233–239. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.4.233.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Witkowski (2010). "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?". Polish Psychological Bulletin. 41 (2): 58–66. doi:10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Stollznow.K (2010). "Not-so Linguistic Programming". Skeptic. 15 (4): 7.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Lum.C (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy. Psychology Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-8058-4029-X.
  8. Bergen Von; et al. (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly. 8 (4): 281–294. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403.
  9. Druckman, Daniel (2004) "Be All That You Can Be: Enhancing Human Performance" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 34, Number 11, November 2004, pp. 2234–2260(27) doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x
  10. Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34 (1): 103–107, 105. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.103.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Devilly GJ (2005). "Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry" (PDF). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 39 (6): 437–45. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x. PMID 15943644.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Norcross | display-authors = etal (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515
  13. Lilienfeld.S, Mohr.J., Morier.D.. (2001). "The Teaching of Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: Useful Resources". Teaching of Psychology. 28 (3): 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03. S2CID 145224099.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Dunn.D., Halonen.J,Smith.R. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4051-7402-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C., & Wexler, K.W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions", Journal of Addiction Medicine, vol. 4, no. 3, (September 2010), pp 176-177
  16. Glasner-Edwards.S.,Rawson.R. (June 2010). "Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy". Health Policy. 97 (2–3): 93–104. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.05.013. PMC 2951979. PMID 20557970.