You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Debunk-Tuesday – Neuro-Linguistic Bullshit
Okay, as far as I can see the first 1/3 of this post is you describing very abstractly and poorly what NLP is. Then you use the rest of the article to just keep hammering in your point that NLP is anti-science and more like a cult then a true therapy that can help people. But I don't think you give any concrete examples of ways that NLP is such a scam that you say it is. All you do is point to references of what you call "solid science" but you never even care to share the very "solid" arguments against NLP. You mostly just share that there is a conflict, period. This feels very much like a straw-man argument, and someone like I that only know loosely what NLP is would have liked a debunking article to have more substance then this.
Fun fact: This is actually based on a description by NLP-practicioners (some may argue, there is even a reference to that).
Wrong. There is no "conflict", but after more than 30 years of research still no solid evidence backing up the claims of NLP. This is why I referred to several meta-analyses, stating exactly this. That's the problem. In your profile you're stating you're a student of psychology. Good. I encourage you to ask your professors about NLP. I would argue, it's quite likely they will be as dismissive about NLP as my psychology profs were. In empirical psychology NLP is not considered a valid concept of either psychotherapy in special or useful to solve psychological issues in general. Maybe I'm a bit biased, since the psychology departement of my university had an intense focus on empirical research and statistics.
There is a reason I provided every source I used. For additional details feel free, to educate yourself further. On this series I usually provide some kind of overview regarding the current state of research of a given topic. Not an in-depth analysis. If I choose to provide a highly detailed explanation of a certain topic, I do it in a series of its own.
These Tuesday-posts are aiming to be short, (hopefully) entertaining and to provide some new insights. Nothing more. At no point I would suggests, this is a highly detailed explanation of everything there is.
Don't get me wrong here: I appreciate critical comments like yours, it just seems you were focusing on something I never intended to do.
Best regards
Ego
Okay, first a thank you for a thorough answer is in order. Thank you, it shows that you probably are an honest content creator :)
But I want too highlight that my main criticism is that I hate when people act like they know more then they show just by merely referencing to other material. I think that's something you can relate too if you are on this quest of debunking fiction with no real validity too it. So, even if these "Tuesday-posts" are meant to be some tongue-cheek rants about myths that you find annoying with no hardcore intellectual work involved (which btw is completely fine) I would still like if you had at least one solid example of some stand out stupidity. Just so it feels like you are playing with open cards. Maybe your line about how our body, brain and behavior are so not so comfortable distinguishable from each other was suppose to be that example, but it still feels shallow to me without showing us little bit of your counterpoint.
Still, I might be a little hard on you as I don't really know how serious these installments are suppose to be. But maybe this is something worth being mindful of.
Well, that's what I try, at least :P
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I thought, the mentioning of the possible wonders of NLP Bandler wrote in his book about, would be sufficient, but I guess you're right. I will keep this in mind and will include more examples in future posts of this series.