User:GregA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, My name is Greg Alexander. I currently work as a counsellor in Sydney, and am also building my own NLP practice.

My main focus on wikipedia is the Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop article, which is very contentious.

I believe all sides can be represented in a natural way that makes sense. I've decided to build a short 'outline' of NLP in such a way that it shows where spirituality fits in NLP, where pseudoscience fits, etc (they seem to be the 2 key contentious issues). I believe this is neutral, but I am far from perfect :). I would appreciate any comments you can make, in the discussion area, in how to be more inclusive of all views while representing fairly. I THINK this is so general that it's almost a non-issue, but maybe I've ignored an area or understated or overstated something???? So please let me know.

[edit] NLP

NLP began with the modeling of the processes of 3 psychotherapists, and an epistemology developed from Gregory Bateson.

In recent times, even this simple beginning contains some source of potential confusion: Some in NLP consider "modeling" to be the basis of NLP, others consider the processes modeled to be the basis of NLP.

From the modeling, some of the patterns and beliefs which emerged included:

1. a set of language patterns used by client and therapist to elicit change ("metamodel", and "milton model")
2. a focus on a person's patterns - not their specific content
3. the belief that people are not conscious of everything they do
4. verbal and non-verbal communication
5. the use of internal imagery and "mental rehearsal" as equivalent to actually doing the task.
6. the concept of internal representation system (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) and ways of working with it
7. a focus on what works without needing to know why it works
8. methods for determining whether a change has occurred (calibration, unconscious signals)
9. a belief that people learn naturally through 'modeling' someone, and this skill can be further developed
10. the concept of adapting and changing depending on the context and who you are working with

The patterns and beliefs were applicable to many different fields - and ANY subjective experience could be studied if it was of interest

[edit] NLP splinters

Over the years, people trained in NLP went their own way. The field was defined quite broadly and had no central control to say what's accepted or not, or how it was developed (it still doesn't). NLP practitioners chose what they were interested in personally - many applied NLP to therapy to start with, some became involved in self-development, but their choices were wide open.

While some NLP practitioners stuck more closely with 'pure' NLP, others applied NLP in other fields which became quite popular in their own rights and became associated with NLP, some are recognised as NLP.

1. Many applied NLP to therapy, especially in the early years
2. Some people modeled the subjective experiences of meditation, spirituality, etc - to replicate the experience
3. Some developed theories to explain the NLP processes
4. Some used the change patterns to their own ends (sales, seduction)
5. Some made wild claims
6. Some other fields developed from NLP, which used their own name and focussed NLP processes in a particular context/direction.
7. Some existing fields ("good" and "bad") started to use some NLP processes
8. A self-development focus emerged using early patterns
9. Books were written and courses run containing any of the above
10. Some courses were highly experiential, some involve modeling, some were short and lecture based

This resulted in confusion to what NLP is. There is no NLP standard.

• Is NLP defined by what it began as?
• Should an NLP definition encompass the full variety of anything calling itself "NLP?".
• Perhaps a "majority view"?
• If another field says they "use NLP" how does this reflect on NLP? Should it reflect NLP at all? Does it matter if they say they're using it or if it looks similar?
• Some trainers teach "NLP and Huna" (and similar) - in what way does this affect the definition of NLP?

[edit] Modeling, and Scientific Analysis

NLP does not teach the scientific method. It also does not work on "averages" which psychological statistical analysis relies on.

For example - take modeling a Tennis player. The goal is to replicate the players skills, so you start by picking a player you WANT to play like (this is a subjective decision, not objective). Once modeled - the test is not whether you have a higher score than you did before, but whether you play in the SAME MANNER as the person modeled. The idea is to develop a total alternative to how you currently play (later you may integrate the 2 choices).

How do you test whether you are playing in the same manner as the original model? This involves a subjective comparison - from yourself, from external observers, and fom the original model. (If you were starting a tennis school, however, you'd have a different intention - your students playing well, not playing like the model.)

Many NLP processes are taught as being effective change skills - they passed NLP's subjective modeling tests, and the tests of whether they encourage change. Although psych research can't test whether an NLP pattern replicates Virginia Satir's methods - psych research CAN test for the NLP pattern's general effectiveness. NLP practitioners are not specifically interested in psychological research, and it is not required and built into their training program - so the controlled research has often not involved NLP practitioners but rather Psychologists who have performed the NLP processes.

The results were not great for NLP processes - in fact they were BAD, specifically research on representation systems. Some NLP practitioners criticised the research in several ways, including not using trained NLP practitioners, artificially preventing the practitioner from adapting what they were doing to the client, choosing clients from freshman Uni psych classes, and creating highly unrealistic contexts (other psychotherapies have had similar problems in their results).

But these criticisms were almost exclusively informal (Einspruch and Forman are one exception) - NLP practitioners didn't do their own psychological research, they did not reply in journals. The methods and goals of NLP and Psychology are quite different and there is still a communication gap. In fact, the majority of NLP practitioners were unaware of or simply did not care what psychologists thought.

This lack of psychology/NLP interaction doesn't matter except if NLP claims to be a science. Psychologists have spent many years developing ways of measuring change in people, and NLP claims to be able to make changes. Apart from modeling, change work with clients should produce something measurable. If NLP wants to be accepted within Psychology then NLP practitioners need either to do research under Psychological guidelines, or interact more with Psychologists. Still, does NLP really care? Is it a therapy at all? Psychologists are rewarded by doing research, it's required as part of their training. NLP has no standards-setting body.

There has been some supportive research. Outcome based research has repeatedly found that NLP processes had a measurable positive effect. This research allowed NLP practitioners to do their own practice and to be flexible. Outcome based research is far less controlled, and since practitioners can use any NLP pattern it is impossible to say which specific patterns are effective - just that the treatment is effective overall. For instance, CBT has been shown to be effective, and some of the CBT methods are shared by NLP processes - it is plausible that the effectiveness of NLP is entirely due to those shared processes (if this were true, you could simply study CBT). Outcome research doesn't allow this to be determined.

Although practicing psychologists and experimental psychologists have similar conflicts regarding realistic counselling environments and controlled testing, their shared training background alleviates animosity to a large degree.