Why has NLP been rejected by psychologists?
Question by Robert: Why has NLP been rejected by psychologists?
Aspects of NLP such as VAK and the Meta-Model of thinking have helped me understand how people communicate and understand the world, and I believe they have helped me to improve my communication.
Apart from the abuse of NLP in advertising, what are some reasons that NLP has remained a controversial theory?
Thanks in advance.
Best answer:
Answer by Katie
Psychologists in the mainstream and academic world only accept theories based on empirical evidence and backed up by the scientific method. In controlled scientific studies, there has been very little or no evidence for the effectiveness of NLP.
As with other pseudoscience practitioners, such as astrologists and homeopathologists, individuals who practice NLP can be very convincing of the authenticity and effectiveness of their work. They probably believe in their methods themselves.
However, when put to the test scientifically, evidence suggests their claims are unjustified. Their theories are not based on scientific evidence either. Contrary to the implications of it’s scientific-sounding name, Neuro- Linguistic Programming has no basis in the findings of neuroscience, neuropsychology, linguistics etc. It has myriad other scientific-sounding jargon words, which are not scientifically founded either.
There are several reasons this method will have appeared to have been effective.
One is that simply believing that something will work often elicits a therapeutic effect, causing the patients condition to improve. This is called the placebo effect and has been proven scientifically on many medical and psychological medications and treatments.
Another reason is that it has been proven that generally more positive thinking patterns do improve behavior and any treatment that improves confidence and positivity will show positive results.
Many of the concepts involved in NLP are indeed based on facts such as the concept that behavioral patterns are learned through experience, however these facts have been proven independently based on thorough emperical evidence, outside of the NLP theory.
So, although many aspects of NLP may seem to be compelling and convincing, it is usually best to stick to conventional and scientifically founded theories that are backed up by experts in the field, and the evidence.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
There are many reasons that NLP is controversial. Katies answer seems somewhat wide of the mark to me. Its rather odd to suggest that NLP doesn’t work and that its borrowed from else where. Which is it?
As to proving NLP, yes its difficult to test many areas simply because it is impossible to test without involving people and therefore the testing becomes subjective. One day maybe someone will come up with a good test for something like a phobia cure.
One major reason for the controversy is the way in which NLP is presented. Its very easy to see it as being a little like scientology in that you pay a lot of money for course after course. I have commented myself (see link below) that NLP is a bit like a pyramid scheme.
There is also a lack of quality control – too many people with practitioner certificates who can do nothing at all. Personally I hate the NLP community because of this.
As to psychologists, there is another reason they don’t like it – like many acedemics they update and change their ideas slowly and rarely. Also its not in the interest of someone whos done years of study to become a high paid professional to endorse something that appears to be 10 times quicker, easier and more effective than what they do themselves.
NLP is a sprawlling mess of techniques and models, and like you there are areas I find very useful and other areas I just am not interested in. Stick with what works for you and you can’t go far wrong whether the acedemics are willing to endorse it or not.