Yesterday, an outcry ran through the NLP community. And even though I'm strongly critical of the largest part of that community, I have to admit that, in this case, they are perfectly justified.
What happened is that a supposedly(?) scientific article "debunked" NLP by clarifying that, contrary to NLP claims, turning your eyes to the upper right corner does not indicate that you're lying.
The obvious problem with that is that basically no NLPer actually claims that to be true, at least none that I've ever heard of. I've read a lot of NLP literature and can proudly call myself a "certified NLP practitioner", so I do know what I'm talking about. It's simply not what they teach you. The article is barking up the wrong tree.
If you tell an NLPer that NLP is b.s., they'll almost instinctively ask you, "which part of NLP do you dislike?" And they're right in doing so. Even if most of a goldmine consists of empty, worthless rock, there might still be some nuggets in it. "Test everything, and keep what's good"!
So, triggered by this current, though (in the course of the world) rather minor event, I'll reflect on my knowledge of NLP and add my reasoning about it. Please note that THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. Such would take years and large sums of dollars, both of which I lack. You'll have to contend with my very subjective, unscientific conjectures here. At best, this might be the basis for further discussion.
Also, this is by no means complete. In fact, it's just a few tidbits that come to mind while I write this. Sorry, but NLP is a vast field. I can only cover so much in a simple blog posting.
1. Mirroring And Basic Rapport
The claim: By mirroring another person's movements, you can gain rapport with them.
Seeing that people obviously like to engage in all kinds of activities that involve moving in sync with each other - dancing, sports events, clicking the glasses over the table - I'm pretty much prepared to believe that one. I will add, though, that I don't think it's necessary to do it consciously, on purpose. If you want to gain someone's trust - why not simply listen to them, be aware of their movements and physical presence, listen to what they say without being judgmental about it? I'm fairly certain that the physical effects of pscychological closeness will come automatically if you actually gain that closeness - why walk the complicated path of faking it, when you can easily get the real thing?
2. Mirroring The Decision Strategy
The claim: By mirroring another person's "decision strategy", you can influence their decision.
Okay, this one's outright stupid. It's also kind of hard to explain to the non-initiated. The idea is that you can make someone decide in your favor just by using words from the right "representation system". If someone arrives at a decision by listening to a small voice in their head and then having a bad feeling about it, you're supposed to say something along the lines of "It sounds excellent, and doesn't it feel good?"
Yeah. It's actually that stupid. There is no bloody reason for why this is supposed to work, even within the framework of NLP, and much less in general psychology.
3. Eye Access Cues
The claim: By watching the eyes of a person, you can determine a lot about what they're currently thinking, specifically the "representation system" and whether it's a memory or a newly created imagination.
This is what the article in question talked about. And while it's not taught like they said in that article, what they actually teach you makes precious little sense. It's based on the neurological knowledge of the 1970s, and the proof consists of nothing but anecdotal evidence - "I tried it in my peergroup, and it worked every single time". Such as: "I asked him to think about his mother's voice, and his eyes went to the middle-left." ... Well, how did you check that? "I asked him whether he had heard it in his head." Yes sure. Have you tried asking him whether he also saw her face? And when his eyes moved upwards, did you ask him whether he had a feeling in his body?
Cos, you know, I'm fairly certain that the answer to every single one of those questions is "yes". Cos, you know, my own little pet hypothesis is that every single thought actually consists of elements of ALL "representation systems". Memories are a holistic experience - you always feel, hear and see them, all at the same time.
No, I did not check that with the scientists. Neither did you. So shut the f*ck up.
Yes, people do move their eyes when they think. When I think about my ex girlfriend's face, I see it in front of me, a little to the lower-right. You might probably visualize your ex boy/girlfriend to the left, or behind you, or inside your head, or wherever. In other words, I just don't think that that little scheme that they show you at their seminars has anything to do with reality. Somebody must have pulled that out of their dirty little ass. And since nobody in the NLP community EVER bothers to check anything that comes as part of the package, it stuck, and it keeps being repeated even today.
Has it got any merit? Heck, who cares? As long as there are people who pay for this crap, honestly, why SHOULD they care? Tehre's just no incentive. It's not like those people had any urge to, you know, KNOW what they're talking about, or check their facts, or be honest with their customers. Cashing the check is more important than that, after all.
4. Reframing (in general)
The claim: By choosing more positive (or negative) words, you can influence people's emotions.
Okay, that one I get. Talking about "your opportunity to find a great job that suits your talents" sounds a great deal more positive than "you were fired, you poor bastard, how are you going to support your family?" I think we all do that, somewhat semi-consciously, all the time - we spin the events of our lives to be more positive or more negative, depending on our emotions. That's fine. If you know it, you can have a lot of fun of it and produce more positive feelings. Why not. Literature does it all the time. Movies do it, music does it. Just don't overdo it, and don't become a politician or marketer.
5. The Sleight Of Mouth Patterns
The claim: By applying specific linguistic patterns, you can help a person overcome overgeneralized or limiting beliefs.
Well, yes of course! After all, this is just a formalized list of ways to object to whatever the other person says.
For example, if someone thinks that "all lawyers are liars", you can ask them how that belief serves them, whether all other professionals are liars too and what makes the difference, or you can ask them to come up with a few examples of lawyers they knew and that turned out to be liars; or you can come up with an example of a lawyer you know who didn't lie. Etc.
It's a simple application of logic.
The NLP jargon may be a bit of an obstacle, but in principle, of course you can have a list like that - whether you agree with the original list given by Robert Dilts in the 80s or not.
What I find odd is that, ever since the 80s, nobody bothered to revise the list, or have a critical discussion about it. It's pretty hard to imagine that Dilts got it absolutely right, covering all possibilities out there, all in one gigantic stroke of genius. The list is taught as it is, and that's it. There is no spirit of critical thinking in those seminars. I find that rather troublesome and sad.
6. The Meta Model
The claim: By asking several out of a list of possible questions, you can help a person overcome distortions of their worldview, and reconnect with the origin of those distortions.
Well... in theory, yes. Practically the same as with the Sleight Of Mouth Patterns.
In practice, I have the impression that this is mostly used for stopping the critics dead in their tracks. "How exactly do you know that=", "Who said that?", "When did you last experience an example of that?" etc., all seem terribly practical when you want to expose someone as incompetent or stupid. If you handle those questions with care, you can use them for more productive purposes too, of course.
7. The Milton Model
The claim: By using vague language, you can gain rapport.
Well... yes. Duh, I mean... Who would have guessed that general terms create opportunities to agree with whatever?
Did you nod in agreement just now? Did you? DID YOU???
Hah!
8. Anchoring
The claim: By touching someone, or performing a peculiar move while they are in a specific emotion, you can create a trigger. By later repeating that touch or move, you can then recall that emotion and thereby influence people's emotions.
There has to be some truth to that one, as it's really just a watered-down, simplified version of actual conditioning. But it's certainly not as simple as NLPers imagine. I, for one, never really managed to apply anchors to myself in such a way that I could recall them a few hours later. They only ever seem to last for a few minutes or so. And they certainly don't work after just one application.
And by the way, the reason they often do seem to work in live demonstrations is probably just peer pressure and the need to conform to the guru's demands. The same goes for most of what's done in those seminars. It's a short-term push of a high state. Ask the participants a year later, and they'll probably have fond memories of a few good days. But no lasting changes.
9. Changing Submodalities
The claim: By changing the "submodalities" of a memory, such as brightness, loudness, tone of voice associated with it, you can also change the emotional contents.
This one actually seems to have merit. Especially the submodality of "associated/dissociated" definitely helped me overcome a few terrible images that kept haunting me for years.
I'm still not quite convinced of that claim, though. Yes, it did help me to some degree - but somehow, that never seemed to produce the results that I had in mind. The real changes always still seemed to come slowly, from practicing daily meditation over the course of several years, from actually putting in some hard work. That said, this is the one thing that I practice regularly - mostly just for fun. Making the colors of the world a little brighter on a rainy day, or making myself feel as if I were drunk when I'm really totally sober. Stuff like that.
I do have the impression that NLPers simply to overestimate and overgeneralize something that is a real effect in this case. Not just every last mental representation seems susceptible to those kinds of changes, and the eco-system of our brain knows pretty well how to remain stable even in the face of the most advanced and fancy maneuver on your part.
10. The Plethora Of "Formats"
The claim: By guiding someone through a cooking-recipe-like formula of visualisations, states, and questions, you can eliminate any and all unwanted psychological effects, and create all kinds of abilities or wanted states.
The formats are like cooking recipies. There is no personalization, there is no calibration. You go through the moves, no matter what. If it doesn't work, then you "didn't apply this highly effective format correctly".
We're talking about PEOPLE here, folks. You HAVE to be kidding me!
I won't provide an example here. Look up the "fast phobia cure" if you like, and decide whether you believe that it works.
I don't. I mean, I do believe that it did work, for the guy who invented it, that one time. That's because it was precisely suited for his or her own needs at that moment. But it's far from a general formula for how to treat any and all phobias out there. The human mind is just not quite that simple.
Summing It Up
In general, I think that NLP is based on an extremely reductionist, simplistic model of the human mind. Sure, some parts of it are true - just like with any other worldview, some parts HAVE to be true. When you throw the ball often enough, a few times you will inevitably hit that basket.
What I find, when I re-read what I wrote above, then I find a common theme: Those parts that do work are all just common-sense, only dressed in that weird jargon to make it sound more NLP-y. Or NLPdiotic. As such, the whole thing is worth a few bucks for books, but certainly not thousands of dollars for weekend courses and pretty-print certificates.
The main issue I have with NLP is the overall uncritical, almost religious attitude that it advocates. Once something has the label "NLP" slapped on it, it is treated like gospel. If it doesn't work, then the student didn't apply it correctly, or the modalities were wrong, or it was the wrong format, or a gazillion of other excuses. Scientific studies are used when they fit with the NLP worldview, and otherwise discarded.
You just don't create any earth-shattering revelations that way. In order to create actual knowledge, you have to put in the hours, the determination, and the scientific rigor. The way the NLPers go about their business, at best, they're playing a guessing game. While at worst, they're using their coachees as test subject for dangerous mindgames that they actually know nothing about. In the meantime, they just take lots of money for stuff that doesn't actually have any effect.
What makes matters worse is that the claims are so outrageous. It's a world of superlative "extreme effectivity", "instant change", "best increase in sales EVAR!!!". And of course, those outrageous claims are justified within the NLP religion itself - it's just reframing, nothing more. By buying into the hype, you have already started to allow yourself to take in all that glorious knowledge you're about to learn for just a few more thousand bucks.
This last bit, in my view, is the most creepy. It creates regular NLP zombies, people who live for reaching that dangling carrot, never realizing that they've been had. By sheer words.
So, one could argue that in a way, NLP does work, after all. It works extremely well for the host of NLP trainers on their quest for your money. What they have to do to your soul to get it is, after all, not their concern. Or to their own souls, for that matter.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen