Related Links referenced by Adam in this video: 1. 10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology: digest.bps.org.uk/2016/07/29/10-of-the-most-widely-believed-myths-in-psychology/ 2. Richard Bandler interviewed on the BBC, as referred to in my video: ua-cam.com/video/R1yjd6DY1xE/v-deo.html 3. Michael Heap's NLP critique papers: www.mheap.com/nlp.html
Adam Eason I see, however is therapeutic self or not self induced hypnosis, something similar to NLP but with more evidence based? And do you have any link to some research that has been done to NLP to demonstrate some evidence about it ? Because they talk about a method that could or could not be effective. And I really don’t want to spend my time learning something that isn’t reliable. Even though, it feels and seems to help to program our mentality in a better way. Such as many types of meditations do to our psyche.
@@TheMercuriusPost You can go and search any credible research database to track down research of any topic; use PubMed or PlosOne or even google scholar - however, I think you'll discover that there is a distinct lack of credible and good quality scientific research to support the field of NLP. There is some, but nothing that has really helped support it's cause in the academic fraternity or within conventional psychological fields. There are many practitioners who without doubt derive some useful benefits for their clients using NLP - however, many dispute whether it is truly the NLP techniques making them effective, or if it is a wide number of extra therapeutic factors (such as expectation, belief in the therapist, financial payment of services, etc, etc) that are responsible for the results. It is tough to give you a thorough and exhaustive reply in a UA-cam comments section - I'd recommend doing some diligent exploration and research of your own in addition to following up on the points I make in this video to make your own decision as to whether this is an area you wish to explore further.
From how I understand NLP it is mainly a tool to excerpt patterns of thinking and behavior and structure them in such a way that others can learn to get the same results. A model to create models. Because of the strong focus on teaching the models that were created with NLP instead of NLP itself and the fact that in the beginning mainly focused on extraordinary therapists, it seems to be widely misunderstood. Especially by people who cry for scientific evidence, who's knowledge about NLP rarely goes further than misquoted out of context claims. At least this has been my experience so far. Funnily enough it seems to me like these out of context made up claims are the base for the hypotheses of the research done so far. The presupposition in NLP that if somethings doesn't work, try something else until you find out what works, already works against the scientific method, where something you do, needs to reap the same results in the same way every time. In other words the results must be repeatable. NLP accounts for the differences in every human beings way of structuring their perception of reality. With the scientific method you usually test to get exactly the same results in the same way and if this exact same way doesn't work for a significant amount of people, it will be declared as nonsense. NLP in its core can not be scientifically proven, because it is not real. It was created as a thinking and learning tool to structure your own thinking in such a way that you can create certain results, but in a flexible way. Science wants consistency, NLP wants you to be flexible. Science wants to know why and if something works, NLP wants to know how something works and how to use or change that process. The scientific method is a methodology as is NLP. It is a different method of finding things out about the world. It is like having two different kind of windows in two different rooms. You can perceive the same outside through them and you can not see one window through the other window. The other window is not outside so it must not exist, or does it? It exists, you just can't perceive it from the scientific point of view.
But still, the evidence for NLP is still very thin to this day, If you really want to know how humans think and perceive reality scientifically then cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are the ones to go to. There is no justified argument for NLP at all, and for you to do so is foolish simply because there is hardly any evidence to support the efficacy of NLP. It's nothing more but fluffy language that sounds scientific which is how the cognitive dissonance starts up and people getting exploited for money (which is exactly what every NLP coach or course ends up doing since it's a great marketing buzz). Plus much of what NLP teaches isn't exactly inclusive to NLP. The idea of NLP modelling is questionable because if NLPers can model geniuses then why aren't they a genius themselves and rich billionaires? If I can model a helicopter pilot without qualified training does that make me a helicopter pilot if I copied him completely?. If you want to talk about modelling then looking into social learning theory by Albert Bandura is your go to source. That completely contradicts everything that NLP have said about modelling. "NLP in its core can not be scientifically proven, because it is not real. It was created as a thinking and learning tool to structure your own thinking in such a way that you can create certain results, but in a flexible way" You're right it can't be scientifically proven because the NLPers can't be bothered to do so because they feel that they're stuff works because they say so....which is hearsay, a logical fallacy. There still needs to be proof that NLP helps you to structure your thinking and attain certain results. As of now there is none, and so the default position is non-belief until evidence is produced. "The presupposition in NLP that if somethings doesn't work, try something else until you find out what works, already works against the scientific method, where something you do, needs to reap the same results in the same way every time. In other words the results must be repeatable. NLP accounts for the differences in every human beings way of structuring their perception of reality" You appear to equate the scientific method with that of NLP and that's a false equivalence fallacy because NLP is not a proven method. You've contradicted yourself there and you just said that NLP cannot be scientifically proven, if it cannot be scientifically proven then how can you even suggest that the scientific method is on par with NLP....where's the evidence? "Science wants to know why and if something works, NLP wants to know how something works and how to use or change that process. The scientific method is a methodology as is NLP. It is a different method of finding things out about the world." No science is a proven methodology, NLP is just pseudoscience garbage that sells itself as a science. So it's hardly a methodology. "It is like having two different kind of windows in two different rooms. You can perceive the same outside through them and you can not see one window through the other window. The other window is not outside so it must not exist, or does it? It exists, you just can't perceive it from the scientific point of view." I call bs on that because you actually need to test out your suspicions. You need to actually investigate to confirm your perceptions through evidence finding to either prove or disprove your own perceptions. Perception alone just won't cut it. And if someone comes along and presents better evidence with better investigations then the matter is settled. That's how the scientific point of view works. You can't just perceive off the surface without any further investigation...that's called naive realism according to social cognition.
Related Links referenced by Adam in this video:
1. 10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology: digest.bps.org.uk/2016/07/29/10-of-the-most-widely-believed-myths-in-psychology/
2. Richard Bandler interviewed on the BBC, as referred to in my video: ua-cam.com/video/R1yjd6DY1xE/v-deo.html
3. Michael Heap's NLP critique papers: www.mheap.com/nlp.html
Thank you for trying to give the truth about NLP!
So what would it be, for you, an evidence-based system to develop the same objectives that NLP claims to achieve?
Hi Eduardo, I guess many of NLP's critics would argue that other therapeutic modalities that are far more evidence based already do just that.
Adam Eason I see, however is therapeutic self or not self induced hypnosis, something similar to NLP but with more evidence based?
And do you have any link to some research that has been done to NLP to demonstrate some evidence about it ? Because they talk about a method that could or could not be effective. And I really don’t want to spend my time learning something that isn’t reliable. Even though, it feels and seems to help to program our mentality in a better way. Such as many types of meditations do to our psyche.
@@TheMercuriusPost You can go and search any credible research database to track down research of any topic; use PubMed or PlosOne or even google scholar - however, I think you'll discover that there is a distinct lack of credible and good quality scientific research to support the field of NLP. There is some, but nothing that has really helped support it's cause in the academic fraternity or within conventional psychological fields.
There are many practitioners who without doubt derive some useful benefits for their clients using NLP - however, many dispute whether it is truly the NLP techniques making them effective, or if it is a wide number of extra therapeutic factors (such as expectation, belief in the therapist, financial payment of services, etc, etc) that are responsible for the results. It is tough to give you a thorough and exhaustive reply in a UA-cam comments section - I'd recommend doing some diligent exploration and research of your own in addition to following up on the points I make in this video to make your own decision as to whether this is an area you wish to explore further.
EMDR is an evidenced based standard based on NLP
From how I understand NLP it is mainly a tool to excerpt patterns of thinking and behavior and structure them in such a way that others can learn to get the same results. A model to create models.
Because of the strong focus on teaching the models that were created with NLP instead of NLP itself and the fact that in the beginning mainly focused on extraordinary therapists, it seems to be widely misunderstood. Especially by people who cry for scientific evidence, who's knowledge about NLP rarely goes further than misquoted out of context claims. At least this has been my experience so far.
Funnily enough it seems to me like these out of context made up claims are the base for the hypotheses of the research done so far.
The presupposition in NLP that if somethings doesn't work, try something else until you find out what works, already works against the scientific method, where something you do, needs to reap the same results in the same way every time. In other words the results must be repeatable.
NLP accounts for the differences in every human beings way of structuring their perception of reality.
With the scientific method you usually test to get exactly the same results in the same way and if this exact same way doesn't work for a significant amount of people, it will be declared as nonsense.
NLP in its core can not be scientifically proven, because it is not real. It was created as a thinking and learning tool to structure your own thinking in such a way that you can create certain results, but in a flexible way.
Science wants consistency, NLP wants you to be flexible.
Science wants to know why and if something works, NLP wants to know how something works and how to use or change that process.
The scientific method is a methodology as is NLP.
It is a different method of finding things out about the world.
It is like having two different kind of windows in two different rooms. You can perceive the same outside through them and you can not see one window through the other window. The other window is not outside so it must not exist, or does it?
It exists, you just can't perceive it from the scientific point of view.
But still, the evidence for NLP is still very thin to this day, If you really want to know how humans think and perceive reality scientifically then cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are the ones to go to. There is no justified argument for NLP at all, and for you to do so is foolish simply because there is hardly any evidence to support the efficacy of NLP. It's nothing more but fluffy language that sounds scientific which is how the cognitive dissonance starts up and people getting exploited for money (which is exactly what every NLP coach or course ends up doing since it's a great marketing buzz). Plus much of what NLP teaches isn't exactly inclusive to NLP.
The idea of NLP modelling is questionable because if NLPers can model geniuses then why aren't they a genius themselves and rich billionaires? If I can model a helicopter pilot without qualified training does that make me a helicopter pilot if I copied him completely?. If you want to talk about modelling then looking into social learning theory by Albert Bandura is your go to source. That completely contradicts everything that NLP have said about modelling.
"NLP in its core can not be scientifically proven, because it is not real. It was created as a thinking and learning tool to structure your own thinking in such a way that you can create certain results, but in a flexible way"
You're right it can't be scientifically proven because the NLPers can't be bothered to do so because they feel that they're stuff works because they say so....which is hearsay, a logical fallacy. There still needs to be proof that NLP helps you to structure your thinking and attain certain results. As of now there is none, and so the default position is non-belief until evidence is produced.
"The presupposition in NLP that if somethings doesn't work, try something else until you find out what works, already works against the scientific method, where something you do, needs to reap the same results in the same way every time. In other words the results must be repeatable.
NLP accounts for the differences in every human beings way of structuring their perception of reality"
You appear to equate the scientific method with that of NLP and that's a false equivalence fallacy because NLP is not a proven method. You've contradicted yourself there and you just said that NLP cannot be scientifically proven, if it cannot be scientifically proven then how can you even suggest that the scientific method is on par with NLP....where's the evidence?
"Science wants to know why and if something works, NLP wants to know how something works and how to use or change that process.
The scientific method is a methodology as is NLP.
It is a different method of finding things out about the world."
No science is a proven methodology, NLP is just pseudoscience garbage that sells itself as a science. So it's hardly a methodology.
"It is like having two different kind of windows in two different rooms. You can perceive the same outside through them and you can not see one window through the other window. The other window is not outside so it must not exist, or does it?
It exists, you just can't perceive it from the scientific point of view."
I call bs on that because you actually need to test out your suspicions. You need to actually investigate to confirm your perceptions through evidence finding to either prove or disprove your own perceptions. Perception alone just won't cut it. And if someone comes along and presents better evidence with better investigations then the matter is settled. That's how the scientific point of view works. You can't just perceive off the surface without any further investigation...that's called naive realism according to social cognition.