Comments on: NLP is not Science

By: How Did Batseon Conclude Shoddy Epistomology!

How Did Batseon Conclude Shoddy Epistomology! — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:25:39 +0000

[...] you? I Googled "NLP shoddy epistemology" and got some interesting hits. Here's one: NLP is not Science | Here's a teaser passage: Where it all went to H-E-double-hockey-sticks is when [Bandler and [...]

By: Latest NLP news – NLP is not Science | Episteme « BrightonNLP.com

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:44:43 +0000

[...] NLP is not Science | Episteme [...]

By: NLP for Social Engineers |

NLP for Social Engineers | — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:04 +0000

[...] state of NLP learning and its application to social engineering. It got me riled up enough to do a post on NLP and science a few months [...]

By: George Lambert

George Lambert — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:22:12 +0000

Yep, neurolinguistic programing is indeed as pseudoscientific as it sounds.

More recently it has been discredited by over 100 practitioners and researchers of neuroscience:

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#

Its in a top ten of most discredited interventions

Now thats an amazing result! Show Paul Mckenna and watch his hair fall out altothether:)

By: What can NLP do for me? | Self Help Blog

What can NLP do for me? | Self Help Blog — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:41:37 +0000

[...] NLP is not Science | Episteme [...]

By: grander

grander — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:01:43 +0000

Great post!
NLP is a classic pseudo-science.. with some nasty commercial,self-help features.
The “influence” part of NLP is really silly.. parts are simply taken from the classic social psychology, others are just bullshit. A true classic on influencing people behavior is Robert Cialdini’s work.

Paul Ekman’s work is great too. His work on lie detection is amazing.

By: Getting even better organizational results through personal development | Self Help Blog

Sun, 03 May 2009 05:08:41 +0000

[...] NLP is not Science | Episteme [...]

By: Gadi Evron

Gadi Evron — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:57:44 +0000

Mike, great post! Thanks for taking the time and for your kind words.

First — much respect for mentioning Paul Ekman. He is one of the only body language researchers I respect.

I am unsure why you believe I am disappointed with NLP, I am still examining it and having quite a bit of fun doing so.

I like how you portray NLP as the original experiment and documentation rather than the pseudo-science and “Shoddy Epistemology” (as you quote Bateson describing it).

One point I didn’t like is that while you explain away NLP’s eye accessing cues as a sort of “wrong conclusion to good results”, I think your explanation, while plausible, comes across in a vague fashion as more of a rationalization than anything else.

I look at eye movements as yet another thing to baseline during an interview which indicates thinking processes and intent, for example, rather than anything NLP-like.

Unrelated note, there is a new TV show called Lie to Me which is based on Paul Ekman’s work in detecting lies. He is an advisor on the show.

While popularized, they are mostly careful about how they portray reading different signals, as they can mean quite a few different things from stress to not being honest about something else entirely which people think to themselves.