1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP)

Discussion in 'Other treatments' started by Nancy Blake, Mar 10, 2018.

  1. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    This one worries me a bit, because in principle the same argument could be applied to GET for ME, and I suspect is behind the mindset of SW and Co. It very much depends on whether "if it doesn't work, stop doing it" might include the possibility of causing harm before realising the need to stop. Which is where scientific research might be relevant. How confident can you be, and if so why, that no harms might be caused?
     
    TigerLilea, Valentijn, Webdog and 3 others like this.
  2. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    I fully agree with this.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018
  3. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    I agree that well meaning but manipulatory psychotherapy by therapists with an agenda, poor self awareness & poor ethics can be very dangerous, but i think thats the case in any field of therapy. 'inner voice' in some ways is an unfortunate term because it sounds a bit 'woowoo', but I think it's just meaning our own voice when we talk to ourselves. e.g. after walking into the door for the second time today... Outloud "agghh bl**dy hell!" then silently think to myself "for gods sake whats wrong with me today I'm so clumsy.... mmm well you do have ME & yr balance isnt good today so something...." - The latter being my so called 'inner voice'.



    Some people have terribly self disparaging self talk... Thinking to themselves that they're useless etc, & I think changing that can be really helpful, but it's important not to let avoidance of unhelpful thoughts/selftalk/inner voice (whatever one wants to call it) turn into reality denial. (ie saying you feel fabulous when you dont 'al la' LP/some CBT
     
  4. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Not how I see it. Something much more internal, more akin - for me that is - to musing/deliberating/debating with oneself. Maybe I'm just exposing the fact I'm bonkers!
    Agreed, terribly destructive and self-fulfilling if you don't turn it around. I also agree about the reality denial, but great care needed to ensure perceived realities are valid, and not themselves self-destructive.
     
    janice likes this.
  5. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    thats interesting, because for me thats exactly the same 'voice'

    agreed. Which is why, imo the CBT for ME al la Chalder, is so utterly crazy-making & abusive, convincing people that their reality is self destructive when it is in fact self protective..
     
  6. MErmaid

    MErmaid Guest

    Messages:
    1,419
    Location:
    Under the Sea
    I found NLP to be very helpful, when I was young and healthy, in removing emotional blocks that got in the way of achieving a goal I highly desired.

    I view NLP as one tool in a large tool box. Just like we wouldn’t use a hammer, when simply a screwdriver is required. Why should we criticize a hammer for causing harm, just because some idiot pulled out the wrong tool? Hypotherapy never gave me any positive results, but I knew a few people who benefited immensely from curbing a lifetime nicotine habit.

    If one has the strong desire and income to voluntarily try out different tools, then I don’t see the harm. If a tool works, then I embrace it; if a tool has no benefit then I stop using it.

    The issue, as I see it, lies in the faulty assumption that one tool (drug, surgery, treatment, therapy, etc) works on one Dx all the time for everyone, in the same way. This is a ridiculous assumption no matter what the Dx! Most especially for ME, because we are still trying to wrap our arms around what ME is and is not.

    I vote for blaming the idiot and not the tool.
     
  7. Valentijn

    Valentijn Guest

    Messages:
    2,275
    Location:
    Netherlands
    But that is what scientific research does for us. Instead of relying on anecdotal evidence or case reports, the broader picture is looked at with certain methodologies in place for reliability and consistency. The impression I'm getting is that such scientific evidence shows that NLP is not helping anyone with anything - at least, no more than whatever placebo was used.

    You're assuming that what you teach your patients is both learned by them and helpful to them. Again, the science suggests otherwise, and it's troubling that your response can be summed up as "don't trust science." I understand that the name of science can be badly abused by some parties, but I'd rather see a discussion of the specifics rather than a blanket dismissal of the entire concept of science, even if it's just science as it is applied in psychiatry.

    In fact, the abuse of science in psychiatry is almost involving the creation of false-positives for pet theories, not multiple groups of researchers creating false-negatives to disprove someone else's theories. Scientists replicating the work of others and applying their theories is exactly what should be happening in science (assuming abusive methodology is not used), and isn't the bad science which is normally worthy of being dismissed.
     
  8. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,273
    Location:
    London, UK
    Maybe we come back to Richard Feynman:

    'Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.'

    Narratives that 'make sense' of mental health problems can and do do irreparable harm and the patient and therapist may remain completely unaware of this. Any tool with the power for good is likely to have the power for harm. We do not understand the reasons for mental health problems and I think we have to face up to that.
     
  9. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    I agree fully with the notion of scientific research. I'm also convinced that the notion of reprogramming flawed behaviours is eminently sensible and feasible - I know this to be 100% valid. I know little of NLP, but I suspect it is some and some. I also suspect some of the existing research into NLP may itself have some bias, but would also doubt NLP could come out with a completely clean sheet - when a commercialised treatment is hyped up the way NLP is, I get very wary.

    So I suspect the existing research as being biased, because I'm confident NLP is far from the complete dud the supposed research states it to be. Something is not right. We must be prepared to question all research, not just the bits we want to. But I would also like NLP to have real well run research into it, because I think that would really show and bring out its strengths and identify flaws. But participant selection and real open mindedness would be crucial, as well as a scrupulously well run trial.

    I suppose one of the things that I see as both a strength and weakness with NLP, is how it is effectively an accrual of many things people have learnt in the process of sorting themselves out (a strength), but that these are applied without having the scientific rigour needed to ensure safe/effective usage for all comers (an obvious weakness). Personally I hink it could become a much more effective tool if sensibly trialled with no preconceptions, bias, etc.
     
  10. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    There has to be a way to properly scientifically trial techniques which have the potential for good, so as to ensure the possibility of harm is minimised and known of (even if not fully understood). I know for sure, from many years of my younger life, the major benefits of reprogramming behaviours, and I recognise some of that in what @Nancy Blake speaks of. But I also am keenly aware of the possibility of harms, which is why I do strongly believe in sound trialling of NLP. And to those who say it has already been trialled and proved to be completely ineffective, I am therefore sure the trials were in some way biased, because I know it is very unlikely to completely ineffective. But a well run trial to show how effective it might be, and how safe or unsafe it might be ... that would be good. And of course it will be far from a one size fits all, far far from it.
     
  11. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Yes.

    The one corollary I would say is that once someone seeks to apply such techniques on someone else, then there needs to be some scientific rigour to ensure safety.
     
  12. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    Apologies if i'm being dense @Jonathan Edwards? But I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you pls clarify/expand/give examples?
     
  13. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    Sounds like a big bunch of bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    Trish, TigerLilea and Valentijn like this.
  14. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,273
    Location:
    London, UK
    In my experience narratives that make sense of mental health problems (usually depression) tend to involve attributing cause to some previous events or interpersonal relations, almost inevitably implying some form of blame. That is pretty much what Freud did and it is now clear he just made things up as he went along. I have seen families wrecked by that.

    I have no problem with attributing cause to current circumstances, like being lonely at college or having lost a partner or being unable to cope with work but narratives that dig into the past worry me. Parents of children with ME are constantly being made to feel guilt in this way.
     
  15. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    Ah, yes i see what you mean, thank you for explaining. I detest Freudian theory, he did make it up as he went along and was basically a perv obsessed with sex iyam. But that doesn't mean that all ideas, philosophies, methods that have developed since him are automatically poor or harmful just because he was & his were often.

    I think some narratives have to include the past because the past is making it's presence felt in the present - eg with flashbacks/intrusive memories of past trauma as in PTSD, or feeling worthless because of childhood sexual abuse & that worthlessness/hopelessness making the person depressed.

    But the assumption that there must be a historic narrative, is poison. Even more so that the therapist's imagined/interpreted narrative is right, just because they're a therapist is utterly toxic.
     
    Hutan, BruceInOz, Trish and 1 other person like this.
  16. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    I'm trying to track down a paper or two on trials that clearly show everything about NLP is unfounded, which people are telling me exist ... can someone point me to anything I would have access to please. I'd rather try and do what we claim to stand for here and be objective.
     
    MErmaid likes this.
  17. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Should we not first find a paper that clearly shows that anything about it has been objectively demonstrated? Until something more than anecdotal evidence is provided, there's nothing to disprove.

    Surely those making the claims have the burden of proof? I've never heard anything above anecdotes, assertion and an appeal to plausibility put forward for NLP.

    We've all been here before:

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/guest-editorial-a-radical-care-pathway-for-me-cfs.1336/

    Must I trot out my anecdote about NLP's founder, Richard Bandler again?

    Murder trial because a prostitute was shot in the face with his gun. He got off by saying she was actually shot by his drug dealer:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/news/mn-26470_1_psychotherapist-richard-bandler

    upload_2018-3-12_22-38-57.png
    [​IMG]

    As dodgy as they come.
     
  18. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    USA
    It may be that research on NLP is difficult to track down because most of it was done in the 1970's and 80's, prior to the internet.

    This 1987 paper looked at 44 studies on NLP and found only 6 which were supportive. Of the six, four of those papers were graduate theses.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232447939_Research_Findings_on_Neurolinguistic_Programming_Nonsupportive_Data_or_an_Untestable_Theory
     
    MErmaid, Barry and Trish like this.
  19. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    If it existed that would be good, but there isn't; it is false logic to presume that must be because everything is bad. I don't expect you to believe me, but I'm confident that some aspects are valid (maps strongly onto techniques I used myself long time back), although I'm also sure that other aspects are dodgy.

    I'm obviously not arguing in favour of applying treatment that I myself agree is at least partly flawed; that would be ridiculous. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying it is wrong for us to blindly presume something is totally flawed, and refuse to be open minded about the possibility some of it maybe does work. If you can separate the good from the bad, then you learn and move on.

    Pseudo-science - yes I can agree with that, because NLP tries to sound scientific but isn't. The hard sell hyped up marketing is something of a tell.
    LP is bullocks, some of NLP undoubtedly is, but doesn't change my belief that some of NLP is probably sound. I'd like to understand how supposedly good science proves that something is all bad, if some of it is good.
    Agreed. But showing he was an aerosol does not of itself show everything is bad about NLP. From what I can see he basically trawled for everyone else's knowledge and experience, and bundled it up into his 'own' product. The odds that all of that knowledge and experience is duff seems very unlikely to me, though some/much of it will be. But of course that is obviously still a long way from having scientifically validated treatment. What worked for the original person cannot be guaranteed effective or safe for someone else.

    I just wish that here, in S4ME, we could be open minded enough to consider there may be some good in something, rather than just cry 'bullshit' to the whole lot of it. Some of the stuff I did myself long time back, many times bit by bit, year upon year, you and others call bullshit, and I cannot prove to you otherwise because I'm not going to talk about such stuff here. But it means I know that we are not as open minded and objective about seeing the good as well as the bad, that people would like to claim here in S4ME, and that upsets me. It's not what we are supposed to be about. And it would be wrong of me to not speak out.

    But I emphasise again: Just because I am arguing that some of what constitutes NLP is valid, does not at all mean I think NLP as a package should be applied without scientific validation. I think that anything which did end up with scientific validation, would be a subset/variation of NLP, because as it stands I doubt it would get such validation even if it was properly trialled - but I do believe some aspects of it would prove valid components in something that could be validated.
     
    zzz and MErmaid like this.
  20. Invisible Woman

    Invisible Woman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,280
    I can see what you're saying here @Barry. In normal circumstances, for healthy, consenting and fully informed adults, if you want to give something a try that may help and is very unlikely to harm - why not?

    However, when it comes to healthcare and dealing with people who are vulnerable to further harm, I sincerely believe that treatments need to be properly scientifically researched.

    If I may draw a parallel to exercise as a treatment -I can easily see why the uneducated might think that exercise can't harm, when a few basic blood tests look normal. There was a time when I thought that myself. When I was newly ill, I thought it would help and in the absence of any real evidence for or against, I gave it a go. I now know it can harm, but it's too late the damage has been done.

    We've all heard anecdotes of treatments that work really well for some but harm others. The only way we can know if someone is likely to be a "responder" or whether a treatment might be suitable is having properly designed, rigourous, scientific trials.

    Otherwise, it's very much a case of tryer beware. As a patient group I sincerely believe it is our duty to point that out.
     
    Hutan, Valentijn, TiredSam and 3 others like this.

Share This Page