2 ms·

Point of order: NLP is a valid therapeutic technique. It's just hard as hell to do right, and is prone to generating poor outcomes when applied unethically aga

Point of order: NLP is a valid therapeutic technique. It's just hard as hell to do right, and is prone to generating poor outcomes when applied unethically against people unaware of the practice. The point of it as a therapeutic technique has always been as a tool of self-discovery and patient empowerment. All the woo around it tends to come from the business lit that pop culture has spawned around it, and the fact that for the purposes pop-culture leans on it for, the "problem" to cure is less a deep seated memory distortion that requires excavation and remediation, but "get frigging going and stop being a pansy looking for a magic solution". NLP is not C for people. NLP is the recognition that people overtime architect their own systems of mentation, and dometimes the parts we long ago automated come back to bite us in the ass; and maintenance is needed to update it. That was how NLP came into existence.

smorgusofborg 5y ago
That sounds like a true scottsman argument. Naturally any therapy is hard to perform perfectly to get the full placebo effect and a single blind experiment is almost as hopeless as double blind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
dreamcompiler 5y ago
So it's the cure for technical debt in humans?
guerrilla 5y ago
No. [0] > Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States, in the 1970s. > In the early 1980s, NLP was advertised as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling, and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. > However, as controlled trials failed to show any benefit from NLP and its advocates made increasingly dubious claims, scientific interest in NLP faded.[62][63] > Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method.[Note 2] While some NLP practitioners have argued that the lack of empirical support is due to insufficient research which tests NLP,[Note 3] the consensus scientific opinion is that NLP is pseudoscience[Note 4][Note 5] and that attempts to dismiss the research findings based on these arguments "[constitute]s an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."[80][81] > Surveys in the academic community have shown NLP to be widely discredited among scientists.[Note 6] Among the reasons for considering NLP a pseudoscience are that evidence in favor of it is limited to anecdotes and personal testimony,[22][85] that it is not informed by scientific understanding of neuroscience and linguistics,[22][86] and that the name "neuro-linguistic programming" uses jargon words to impress readers and obfuscate ideas, whereas NLP itself does not relate any phenomena to neural structures and has nothing in common with linguistics or programming.[13][87][88][70][Note 7] In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience.[76][77][78] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#S...

smorgusofborg 5y ago

That sounds like a true scottsman argument. Naturally any therapy is hard to perform perfectly to get the full placebo effect and a single blind experiment is almost as hopeless as double blind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

dreamcompiler 5y ago

So it's the cure for technical debt in humans?

guerrilla 5y ago

No. [0] > Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States, in the 1970s. > In the early 1980s, NLP was advertised as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling, and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. > However, as controlled trials failed to show any benefit from NLP and its advocates made increasingly dubious claims, scientific interest in NLP faded.[62][63] > Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method.[Note 2] While some NLP practitioners have argued that the lack of empirical support is due to insufficient research which tests NLP,[Note 3] the consensus scientific opinion is that NLP is pseudoscience[Note 4][Note 5] and that attempts to dismiss the research findings based on these arguments "[constitute]s an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."[80][81] > Surveys in the academic community have shown NLP to be widely discredited among scientists.[Note 6] Among the reasons for considering NLP a pseudoscience are that evidence in favor of it is limited to anecdotes and personal testimony,[22][85] that it is not informed by scientific understanding of neuroscience and linguistics,[22][86] and that the name "neuro-linguistic programming" uses jargon words to impress readers and obfuscate ideas, whereas NLP itself does not relate any phenomena to neural structures and has nothing in common with linguistics or programming.[13][87][88][70][Note 7] In fact, in education, NLP has been used as a key example of pseudoscience.[76][77][78] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#S...