Hi Blanca

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed post. My response is necessarily somewhat longer to deal fairly with the points you raise:

That must have made it very difficult to reply!

Seriously, though, I wonder if you have overlooked the fact that I might not have blundered onto this forum by chance?
In fact Kowolski (himself?) introduced me by citing a page from my website in support of one of his spurious claims. I am merely responding to his allegations. (See last part of this post for an explanation.)

It would be interesting, and useful, to know what YOU mean by "NLP".
In practice NLP is the label for a specific modelling technique, and nothing else.

I'm guessing you are probably referring to other NLP-related techniques. But which ones? This is relevant because of your next comment:

I totally agree. But then again, this claim has never been made by the co-creators of the FoNLP, so your criticism has no relevance to that subject.

Again, I agree entirely. This is indeed "rhubarb" since again it bears no relevance to the authoritative account by Bandler and Grinder in their book "Frogs into Princes" (pages 7 and 18). In fact they clearly state that they are not interested in neurological explanations for what they are describing, which are *observations*, NOT "truths".

And BTW, you *are* wrong. See, for example: Kinsbourne, M (1972), "Eye and Head Turning Indicates Cerebral Lateralization". In "Science", Vol. 176, No. 4032, May 5. Pages 539-541.

And again, I agree entirely. But I feel you are confusing the carpenter with his hammer, so to speak.

A hammer can be used to drive in a nail that holds a shingle to a roof ...
And the same hammer can be used to bash someone's head in.

In each case, is the use of the hammer the responsibility of the hammer, or of the person using the hammer?

All of the original NLP-related techniques were modelled from people who were ALREADY using them for highly constructive purposes.

On the contrary, though I understand this is how it may look to you (and some other people).

I have actually spent a good deal of time over the last 18 months or so reviewing academic criticisms of what the authors think of as "NLP" - from the early research through to the present day. Moreover I started out with the hypothesis that if so many highly educated people thought there was something wrong with the FoNLP then I'd probably missed something and wanted to find out what it was.

This sounds impressive, but it doesn’t really mean very much in the current context. Let me explain.

Firstly, two of the references are to articles by (i) a journalist with only a one day introductory seminar as the basis for his comments (Sanghera), and (ii) a senior training consultant who claims to understand what “NLP” is about, but (IMO) shows very little evidence to support the claim (Garry Platt – NOT “David" Platt, as Clark calls him).

The report by Steven Cody, on the other hand (actually his Ph.D. thesis) confirms several aspects of the topic he was researching, such as the temporary nature of a person’s PRS. Unfortunately he was working with an incorrect version of an out-of-date definition of “preferred representational systems” (see FAQ 30 - Whatever Happened to Preferred Representational Systems?), otherwise he would very likely have come up with some very useful results.

Which leaves only Heap, Beyerstein and Corballis. I'm not clear which one you think is number 4.

More to the point, much of the published criticism of whatever the authors thought of as “NLP” has appeared in the (peer reviewed) Journal of Consulting Psychology. But, if we take an overview of that material:

In 1981 the Journal published an article by William Fazlett which claimed that:

“This result supported the contention that matching of the client’s PRS with counselor predicates can enhance the atmosphere of trust in the relationship.”

In 1984 the Journal published Christopher Sharpley’s first review of actual research, in which he claimed that “NLP” was basically useless.

In 1985 the Journal published an article by Einspruch and Forman in which they claimed that both the research cited by Sharpley, and Sharpley’s review, were full of errors and oversights.

In 1987, the Journal published a second “review” by Sharpley, in which he claimed that he was right and Einspruch and Forman were wrong.

So, by the logic that “what appears in a reputable, peer reviewed journal must be true”, the PRS concept and some form of predicate matching, were valid (1981), not valid (1984), valid (1985) and not valid (1987).

Or people who question the system designed to preserve the status quo.
But then again, I'm NOT dismissing any genuinely "scientific" evidence (see below).

What exactly do you mean by “science”?

You’re right – these ideas don’t get plucked “out of the air”. On the other hand, in American universities at least (I don’t know about the UK), getting published on a regular basis is a key element in the process of getting “tenure” (getting a permanent post) and advancement. And what you publish had better fit with the views of those who have the power to decide whether you get tenure/promotion.

As for where the criticisms come from, in the case of academic criticisms of the FoNLP, a very large majority of those I’ve read so far are in fact not original but merely rip offs of Sharpley and or Heap’s articles from the 1980s.

Again, if you are interested in looking at all the evidence rather than just the bits that seem to support your existing opinions, I invite you to visit

http://www.bradbury.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax27.htm

Which examines the "Skeptic's Dictionary" version of "NLP"

http://www.bradbury.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm

Which has the links to the various evaluations od academic criticisms, and

http://www.bradbury.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax32.htm

Which has an explanation by a genuinely famous social psychologist - Professor Robert Rosenthal - of why the predicate matching technique cannot be studied using single- or double-blind testing.

But only if you are ready to consider information which varies from your current beliefs.

Well, that isn’t really true. Genuine science is about levels of probability, not absolutes, though most non-scientist tend not to understand that.
But the real point is that *psychology ISN’T a science.* So your comment doesn’t apply.
Neuropsychology is scientific, neurophysiology is scientific, neurology is scientific. Psychology is NOT scientific. For a reason you highlighted:

Not so.
Can you imagine a scenario where, out of a hundred alleged magnets, 50% worked the way we expect magnets to work, 25% only worked every other day, and the other 25% only worked when the sun was shining?

In genuine science one can extrapolate from the specific to the general population, and from the general population to the specific individual. In psychology testing is done at the general level and most certainly will NOT apply with the same level of probability to very member of the test group, or even, in some cases, not at all.

Already answered.

Introducing "The Lone Stranger"

Hi, I’m Andrew Bradbury (real name). I have a degree in Social Psychology and quite a few years of practical application in the fields of Personnel, recruiting, teaching (Sixth form college) and business training (mainly in IT). I run a web site called “Honest Abe’s NLP Emporium”.
As well as a number of articles on various aspects of computing, I’ve had seven books published to date – 5 on computer programming, one on presentation skills, and one on the basics of using the FoNLP in a business context. The latter has just been released in a 4th edition, and various editions have been translated into more than 15 languages.

As far as the web site is concerned, it *includes* evaluations of the criticisms by Heap (who relied entirely on the abstracts – NOT on the complete versions of the articles/Ph.D theses)

NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING: TIME FOR AN INFORMED REVIEW

(This is the article by me published by Heap in his own yearly magazine for sceptics)

Whose Side Are You On?

Small - and Very Badly Made

and 12 more, such as:

If at First You Don't Succeed...

I mention this last item because it includes some interesting information on the value of the “peer review” process, as described by the editor of the UK peer reviewed medical journal “The Lancet”.

Further evaluations of similar material are in preparation.

Thanks again for the interest, Blanca

(p.s. Anyone know why the URLs are being displayed correctly?)