Domnitor
Grup: Membri
Mesaje: 6.255
Inscris: 3 October 03
Forumist Nr.: 899
|
Inainte sa o ridicam in slavi, hai sa vedem ce-i rau la ea:
| QUOTE | Controversies and criticisms
NLP has been criticized by clinical psychologists, management scholars, linguists, and psychotherapists, concerning ineffectiveness, pseudoscientific explanation of linguistics and neurology, ethically questionable practices, cult-like characteristics, promotion by exaggerated claims, and promises of extraordinary therapeutic results. Several reviews have characterized NLP as a "cult" [53], and mass-marketed psychobabble[54][12]. Sanghera, a columnist for Financial Times (London, 2005) writes, "critics say NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudoscience that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on a set of banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions"[55].
Claims to science
Singer (1996) states that "NLP often associates itself with science in order to raise its own prestige" [9]. Winkin (1990) considers such promotion to be "intellectually fraudulent" and compares NLP's association with Science to astrology's association to astronomy [15]. Singer (1996:172) [56] states that "none of the NLP developers have done any research to "prove" their models correct though NLP promoters and advertisers continue to call the originators scientists and use such terms as science, technology and hi-tech psychology in describing NLP". CAP, a UK-based advertising body has issued an advisory in relation to "Stop smoking claims by hypnotherapists" that "references to NLP should avoid implying that it is a new science" [57].
Psycholinguist Willem Levelt states that (translated into English by Drenth) "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises. NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming" [54][58]. Corballis [59] states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".
NLP has been classed as a pseudoscientific self help development [58] [12][11][54], in the same mold as EST (Landmark Forum) and Dianetics(Scientology). Self-help critic Salerno [60] associates NLP with pseudoscience, and has criticized its promotion as self-help. Psychologists such as Singer [9] and management experts such as Von Bergen (1997) have criticized its use within management and human resources developments. Extraordinary and unsupported claims have been made by some NLP promoters, including claims of the heightening of perception to allow a novice martial artist to beat an expert [61], and that it is possible to develop photographic memory through the use of NLP [3]. According to Sala [62] [verification needed], NLP's pseudoscientific associations include claims to rapid cures and treatment of traumas, the use of popular new age myths such as unlimited potential, left/right brain simplicities, and past life regression.
In reference to NLP, Lilienfeld [11] states "the characteristics of pseudoscience are more specifically shown thus", for example:
"The use of obscurantist language" (eg meta programs, parapragmatics, representational systems, submodalities etc)
"The absence of connectivity" [58]
"Over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence" [63]
"An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses and reversed burden of proof designed to immunize claims from falsification" [9]
"Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation (eg reliance on asking how rather than why)"
"Absence of boundary conditions"
"Reversed burden of proof (away from those making claim (NLP promoters), and towards those testing the claim (Scientists))".
"The mantra of holism and eclecticism designed to immunize from verifiable efficacy" [11](Claiming that NLP is unmeasurable due to too many factors or to simplistically “do what works”)[64].
"Evasion of peer review" (If claims were true, why were they not properly documented and presented to the scientific community?)[64]
Pseudoscientific arguments tend to contain several or all of these factors, as can be seen in this example [13] that shows ad hoc hypotheses and holistic argument as an attempt to explain away the negative findings, and an emphasis on confirmation and reversed burden of proof etc. Modern neuroscience indicates that NLP's notions of neurology are erroneous and pseudoscientific in regards to: left/right brain hemispheric differences [62][20][54], the association of eye movements or body gestures to brain hemispheres. The idea that people have visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles which has little substantative evidence (Hines 1987). Robert Carroll [45] states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model. NLP is also based on some of Freud's most flawed and pseudoscientific thinking that has been rejected by the mainstream psychology community for decades[64].
Scientific analysis
Sharpley, Druckman, and the National Research Council have criticised NLP in research reviews which conclude it has failed to show its claimed efficacy in controlled studies [9][10][11]. Beyerstein [65], Lilienfeld [11], and Eisner [64] express concern over the verification of certain aspects of NLP. On the questions of “does NLP work?” and “is NLP effective?” Margaret Singer (1996) cited the NRC research committee who stated that there was no evidence of its claimed effectiveness. [56].
Von Bergen et al [66] state that "in relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error", and Druckman et al (1988) say that "instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors". The 1988 US National Committee (a board of 14 prepared scientific experts) report found that "Individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique"[67]. In addition, Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute heading the NLP focused Project Jedi stated that "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work"[68]. Heap (1989) says "NLP has failed to yield convincing evidence for the NLP model, and failed to provide evidence for its effectiveness" [69].
Heap [69] says "the conjecture that a person has a preferred representational system (PRS), which is observed in the choice of words, has been found to be false according to rigorous research reviews" [69][70]. "The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support" [69][70]. A single critique by Einspruch and Forman (1985) said that Sharpley's[71] review of NLP contained methodological errors. Sharpley refuted this and provided further experimental evidence to demonstrate that NLP is ineffective and in error in both method and model[4]. Von Bergen et al [66] state that "NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny". Thus, objective empirical studies [69][72][73] and review papers [67][70] have consistently shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analysis have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment, and the reiterated statement is that there is no neuro-scientific basis for any of NLP's claims, or any scientific support for its claimed efficacy [4][54][11][56][64].
Efran and Lukens [74] state that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy". Eisner (2000) states that "NLP proponents have provided not one iota of scientific support for their claims" [64] Devilly [75] states that "controlled studies shed such a poor light on NLP and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers found it unwise to test the theory any further". "NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets: The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains and some people still enroll". Beyerstein states that "bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment , and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures."[76] In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged, "critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons" [65].
NLP is considered a "dubious therapy" by Dryden (2001) [14] and The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies [77]. In Crazy Therapies (1996), Singer [56] states that "the process involves pretending that a model works, trying it, then if you don’t get results, discard it and try something else". [56] [67]). Beyerstein (1990p31) [78] considers NLP to be a fringe or alternative therapy. Devilly, a professor of psychology considers NLP to be an "alphabet" or "power therapy" similar to Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction. According to Eisner, the various claims NLP proponents make have no clinical support and are grossly missleading.
Questionable applications
Currently, there is criticism from psychotherapists about the promotion of NLP within psychotherapy associations [11][64]. NLP certification for therapists in most countries still does not require any professional qualifications [64].
Human resources: Human resource experts such as Von Bergen et al (1997) consider NLP to be inappropriate for management and human resource training [14]. NLP has been found to be most ineffective concerning influence/persuasion and modeling of skills [67]. Hardiman and Summers claim NLP is dubious and not to be taken seriously in a business context [79][80]. Within management training there have been complaints concerning pressured adoption of fundamental beliefs tantamount to a forced religious conversion.[81] [Quote from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source] Since the divorce of Tony Robbins, despite his commercial promotion of "Perfect Marriage" counseling, many of his followers became disenchanted [60].
Education: Beyerstein [65] states that a method should be supported using controlled studies before it is applied in education.
Cosmetic effect claims: NLP is applied to breast enhancement and penis enlargement. For example, the NLP practitioner, Goodman [82] sells NLP audio recordings of the NLP swish pattern for enlarging penis size. Eisner [64] asks why, if these miraculous effects are true, have they not been properly documented, nor presented to the scientific community? [64]
Occult and New Age practices: Winkin [15] states that with its promotion with Tai Chi, Meditation, and Dianetics (Scientology), NLP is in the margins of contemporary obscurantism. NLP practitioners sometimes attempt to model spiritual experiences, which inherently, are lacking in scientific support. NLP's new age background often leads to it being sold in combination with shamanic methods of magic (such as by Richard Bandler or Huna mysticism (notably by Tad James) [citation needed].
Cult manipulation and ethical concerns
NLP is sometimes referred to by journalists and researchers as a kind of cult or psychocult.[69][81] [83][84][85][86][64][4] A German educational authority banned the use of NLP in their area and stated that it has a close similarity to Scientology.[84][citation needed] NLP has also been described as a commercial cult, and has been criticised within the business sector for being coercive[81].
Critics say NLP is adopted as a pretext for applying ritual, authority control, dissociation, reduced rationalization, and social pressure to obtain compliance from the cult's victim or to induce dependence.[85] According to Devilly[75] it is common for pseudoscientific developments to set up a granfalloon in order to promote in-group rituals and jargon, and to attack critics. Ethical concerns of NLP’s encouragement towards manipulation have been raised due to NLP book titles such as "The Unfair Advantage: Sell with NLP" and “NLP the New Art and Science of Getting What You Want”. Therapy and coaching fields require an ethical code of conduct (eg: Psychotherapy and Counseling Federation of Australia Ethical Guidelines).
In addition, Beyerstein [65] states that "ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands". NLP is also criticised for unethically encouraging the belief in non existent maladies and insecurities by otherwise normal individuals[60]. Drenth 2003 explains that NLP is driven by economic motives and "manipulation of credulity" of clients, and explains that "often pseudoscientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain". Drenth clarifies this with reference to the well known "financial exploitation of the victims of scientology, Avatar and similar movements". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguis..._and_criticismsDe exemplu, mie mi se par foarte interesante remarcile la NLP - psychocult si cele legate de NLP - pseudostiinta
--------------------
Azi avem.  |
Programarea Neuro Lingvistica ( N L P ), Ce este, ce vrea, ce poate ?
HanuAncutei.com - ARTA de a conversa > Odaia Dezbaterilor: Stiinta si Cultura > Odăi in Dialog - Dezbaterile Hanului > Psihologie - Teorii si Aplicatii. Dezvoltare personala
3 Feb 2006, 01:54 PM
calfa Programarea Neuro Lingvistica ( N L P ) 3 Feb 2006, 01:54 PM
