undefined | Better HN

0 pointscarapace3y ago0 comments

You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

icepat3y ago· 2 in thread

No, but I'm trained as a scientist, so I know how to read research, data, and scientific studies. I don't need to have experience with Scientology to tell you that, based on the available evidence, it's bunk. Nor do I need experience with homeopathy to tell you that water-memory is unscientific and nonsense. Direct, personal experience, isn't how the scientific community collects data, and converts that data into knowledge. It's rigorous study, and testing. NLP has been subjected to that, and it has failed to stand up.

carapaceOP3y ago

>> You don't have any actual experience with NLP do you?

> No

Thank you. That's really the best I can hope for in conversations about NLP with skeptical people. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. But I appreciate your honesty in admitting you do not have first hand experience with NLP.

I am not a scientist myself, and I'm not quite comfortable calling myself an "amateur scientist". However, I am very very pro-science. I consider science to be one of the most important human activities. I also value skepticism. (E.g. IMO James Randi is a hero in the intellectual life of humanity.) However, that said, this is an area where science is out of the loop. This stuff works. It's rigorous and repeatable. It's not even hard to do.

> NLP has been subjected to [rigorous study, and testing], and it has failed to stand up.

That can't be true.

I don't know what the boffins did, but if they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish.

icepat3y ago

You've skipped pretty much most of my argument, but I'll humour you nonetheless. There's no such thing as science being out of the loop. Read my other comment, if you're pushing this unverified "technology" as a cure for depression, you're doing something dangerous and immoral. Just because you found value in this, does not mean it's an alternative to evidence-based, and tested methods. I also solved my depression by very alternative methods, but I also strongly advise people against the methods I used, since they're very much so a "your mileage will very" methods.

>If they can't replicate these simple patterns and techniques they just make themselves look foolish

Consider if the scientific community; a group who has studied everything from astral projection, to the reaction that created the atom bomb; has been unable to replicate the anecdotal results, that it's possible the anecdotal results are caused by confounding factors.

The power of "I want to believe" is very strong.

> That can't be true.

But it is. From a 2010 meta-analysis:

The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept. The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.

18% is statistically insignificant.

Frankly, I'm glad you were able to overcome your depression. Really, the fact that you did this speaks more to your strength as a person than the strength of NLP. Overcoming depression isn't easy -- it's something I have also struggled with. Rather than credit this, I think you should be crediting yourself.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments