'I wonder what it is about PU that attracts people who are more likely to believe in Guru X than scientific evidence.'

Desperation and a hope for a quick-fix in the form of a 'magic pill'.

Please excuse a newbie coming in and suggesting that a well-established member might be mistaken, because I'm afraid Kowolski's comments are consistently misinformed and misleading.

Neither Bandler nor Grinder have ever said that the eye accessing cues don't work.

Amongst the "scientific" studies of the "NLP eye accessuing cues", I can't find a single one that shows any accurate understanding of what the authors call "NLP eye accessing cues".

In fact, from what I've read on sites that get their facts straight, there are NO "NLP eye accessing cues" because, according to Andy Bradbury, quoting John Grinder, NLP is a modelling technique and nothing else. The eye accessing cues model is something that came along as part of the development of what Bradbury calls the field of NLP, which is NLP plus all the related concepts and techniques.

Kowolski was kind enough to post a link to Donald Clark's web site, where the author lists various supposedly "scientific" studies of "NLP". Andy Bradbury has taken Clark's list, and other similar lists such as those on Knol, Wikipedia and so on and actually read the research. It shows three things:

1. The people who did the experiments in the 1970s and 1980s that most criticisms of "NLP" are based on didn't understand the material they claimed they were investigating.

2. The people who reviewed the actual experiments were as ignorant - on the subject of the field of NLP - as the people whose work they reviewed

3. The people who post these lists of critical reports - Clark, Joe Greenhill (sp?) and so on very likely haven't read a word of the material they quote except the quotes themselves which they have cut and pasted from somewhere else. In fact the guy who wrote the Knol article has now admitted that this is exactly what he does.

For some genuine information about this stuff, without the misrepresentations, misinformation and juvenile insults you can read some more of the material on one of the web sites Kowolski has already mentioned

Cargo Cult Criticism

(it shows accurate details of more than 12 of these so-called "scientific" studies)

FAQ 32 - Did Bandler and Grinder Really Understand NLP?

(gives an explanation of why the NLP-related technique most experimenters have supposedly tackled can't be investigated using the genuine scientific method. As described by two genuine social psychologists at Harvard University.)

And Kowolski, please understand that this is simply a question of getting the facts right , I certainly don't want to show any disrespect for you personally.

Whoa there "Lone Stranger", or guy who has, without introduction or exchange of pleasantries, waded into battle against a respected and intelligent member of the forum with the godawful argument of "well you can't use science to test everything". Reading your post made my liver fizz and my blood turn to acid.

Let me say from the off that I believe most NLP works. There is absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't; the human brain is very easily manipulated by someone with a lot of confidence and a few tricks up their sleeve. Just watch one of Derren Brown's live shows and you'll see what I'm on about. However, that certain memories should provoke certain specific eye movements is absolute bollocks. There is a key problem with any explanation of it (aside from the fact it flies in the face of even the most basic scientific thought or even common sense). It has been implied that the eyes' reaction is involuntary, fast and, when repeated, absolutely consistent, suggesting it is a reflex. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is only one reflex associated with eye movement, and that is in response to danger, an opportunity to feed or to mate. I understand that, via Brodman's Area 17 (primary visual cortex), it incorporates the reticular formation, which in turn innervates the occulomotor nucleus and causes the eye to move in order to focus on the situation in question. There is no such reflex associated with any part of the amygdala (an area of the brain associated with memories and emotions), least of all with any occulomotor or abducens nuclei (the only nuclei which control eye movements). Both are found in the brainstem and, as far as we know, have few, if any, connections with areas of the limbic system associated with memory and emotions. QED, the eye thing is rhubarb.

However, this scientific debate over whether the eye thing works or not is mostly superfluous, because it's wierd and creepy and I will never learn it. Hypnotising women into sleeping with me is only just above rape on the morality scale as far as I'm concerned. And besides, wouldn't you rather get good with women by becoming the most awesome person you can be, living life to the fullest and having a bloody good time? Maybe it's just me, but that option sounds preferable to learning how to manipulate people into simply doing your bidding with the likes of Ross Jeffries and all that crowd. You thing you're going to have a meaningful relationship with any woman you've hypnotised into bed?

Anyway, I digress. The real reason I'm writing this is your sweeping disregard for the scientific community and its methods of analysing the world we live in. I've taken the trouble of looking at some of the references in Kowalski's link, and of the five or so there, at least four come from reputable sources. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology is a respected journal with an impact factor of nearly 5, for example. The international journal of mental health has an H-index of 9, which is certainly enough for the purposes of this discussion. The only people who wholesaledly dismiss scientific evidence as "opinion" or "wrong" are almost exclusively idiots. Zealous religious types, fans of homeopathy, astrologers and the like.

Look, science doesn't lie. It's not written by opinionated people who pluck ideas out of the air and aggressively push them in order to make a profit. Science is cold, hard fact - the testing of the laws of nature and how eveything works therein. A scientific investigation is rigorously controlled and tested, repeated endlessly and statistically analysed in order to give the best possible view of the facts. Even then, should this investigation want to be published in a scientific journal, it will be subject to merciless scrutiny. Hell, as an undergraduate even I was accustomed to tearing papers to shreds, so you can imagine what professors of clinical psychology would do to a bad paper. Long story short, if a paper ends up in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, it's probably got more of an idea of the science of NLP than some pseudo-scientific hypnotist with a fast buck to make.

Oh and please post an introduction if you're serious about contributing to the forum. It really fucks me off when people try and push their opinions about life onto me without so much as a hello. Christ, even Jehova's Witnesses say hello before they spew out bullshit and those people are my least favourite in the entire world.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of what you say but would further add that the only people who wholesaledly agree with scientific evidence simply because it's a "reputable" source can be lumped into that descriptor too.

Neuro-linguistic programming treatment for anxiety: Magic or myth?
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

This study doesn't debunk NLP as a whole, it in fact only debunks NLP as a cure for anxiety in 1 session. It doesn't claim that NLP can't cure anxiety in public speakers over longer periods and it doesn't claim that NLP does not work. All it proves is not a short term cure for anxiety when public speaking. I feel like I wasted a perfectly good £6 in paying to read it.

Next up:

Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age.
International Journal of Mental Health

Small - and Very Badly Made

That sums this one up very accurately, I didn't pay for this one and don't intend to.


The problem with NLP is that it got itself a bad reputation early in it's life and has never really had any serious scientific study as a result. The only studies actually performed have been undertaken by people who are very clearly attempting to disprove and thus structuring their studies and debates against it. The closest thing to a real study on NLP that I've read so far is the above one published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, unfortunately it only tests using a small group in a small area of NLP as a whole.



I've taken courses in NLP and hypnotism, they both lend themselves to each other and are incredibly similar. I agree on the eye cues here, they don't work, in fact I saw Derren Brown discuss this on something, I think it was to do with his russian roulette program. He was talking about how he did it and said that memory cues aren't multi directional. We look in one direction when recollecting something and look in another when creating. He said this was different from person to person and his selection process was based on finding someone that he could read easily and trust his readings of.

Derren has stated before that we each have different brain wiring and we all do things differently, for each person he must learn the tells and access cues before he's able to make assertions about lies or truths. I also recall him saying that he enforces access cues on people too. I've noticed that he does a lot of touch anchoring and various other techniques, interrupt waking hypnotism too.

Anyway, I've gone off on a ramble here but thought people may find these things interesting, pretty much everything Derren does is a combination of advanced NLP and hypnotism. Other things he does simply involve probability.

My personal findings are that NLP works, but it's nothing magical and can't be used much with pick up without going into very immoral ground. The basic stuff is unreliable and the advanced stuff is (in my opinion) a form of waking hypnotism, subconsciously manipulating the brain of another person based on cues and anchors implanted by the practitioner without their knowledge or consent. Most pua forums featuring nlp have gone as far as to ban certain advanced routines from discussion as a result. They're dangerous and legally questionable.

EDIT: I just re-read my post and found it to feel kind of disjointed. I apologise, it's nearly 4am.

Damn you're good Blanca with that sexy science brain of yours

Not exactly, you should watch some programs that cover choices, the drawing ones and such. He goes as far as to show exactly how he goes about some of these, implanting exactly what he wants out of them through anchoring and subconscious suggestions.
His live audience acts have followed a similar vein, going as far as to manipulate the viewers watching also, well worth a watch, I can't remember the name of them now unfortunately.

I agree with you on some of his acts, but he does openly explain his methods for all of his tricks, whether by probability, cold reading, illusions or manipulation. His manipulation tricks are the most interesting and relevant here though.

I'll have to check into him , have you read Derren's book "Tricks of the Mind"? There are a lot of useful insights into his uses of NLP and hypnosis in his magic. He talks about hypnotism not actually being anything to do with trance like states but instead being "effective suggestion". His stance on NLP is also that of "over stated".

"as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform (the truth is I have never mentioned it)"

He also states that he does his work through a combination of "magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship."

From what I've seen him do, he does use elements of NLP and even discusses elements in his book, what he calls suggestion is in fact hypnotism, he dislikes the mumbo jumbo magic bend to everything and chooses his own more down to earth words to act as descriptors. For those looking to use NLP I found that it is a useful read since Derren clearly has an understanding of what works and what does not - which is the major problem with NLP and hypnotism.

For those interested: The only hard and fast way to find out is by testing it yourself, some works, some is bullshit; as with pua, you must work out what works best for you and apply it to yourself individually.

Dropped you a PM

to be fair... i have looked into suggestion alot... There was a specific programme where derren has a girl choose from a toy store and throughout he uses gestures, phrases inbeded words all to push towards a girrafe

I.E giraffe a favourite animal when you wer little sounding like DID U HAVE A favourite animal.

Derren uses illusions, misdirection, mentalism NLP, suggestion all of it

AND I CAN PROVE TO U ALL NOW SUGGESTION TO THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND WORKs

next time u are watching tv with someone and they are engrossed... say I fancy a cup of tea... aloud do yourself IF THEY ASK WHAT DID U SAY SAY oh nothin... see how long it is before you have a cup of tea in ur hand

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?)