NLP - Neuro-linguistic programming

[hildrumen]

First post, so might not be the right place to post.
I am from Norway, And NLP is getting more popular herer. Got a buddy of mine who is very interested in this. Read a few of the wiki articles on the subject, and it seems like pseudoscience to me.
The cost for a session in NLP is 1500 kr (250 dollars) wich i think i very expensive for one hour.

I had a discussion about it with the man who runs the place, and he explained to me that this was a proven science. I couldnt find anything to support his claims nor did he provide me with anything, exept a book from Dr Ernest Rossi. Instead of reading this, i thought i could post here first hoping any of you had any knowledge on the subject.

Thanks for reply in advance.

Edit: Here is the information i read about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLP_and_science

 

[Aught3]

Quick reply - it's crap don't waste your money.

 

[hildrumen]

Im not spending that much on something i know nothing about. Seems like crap to me too, but was looking for a more intellegent answer to come back with

 

[Aught3]

Ah, I found it - knew it was on one of the podcasts I like to listen to.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4155

Also:

Neurolinguistic Programming

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a variable system of procedures purported to enable people to communicate more effectively and influence others. It is said to involve modifying the patterns or "programming" created by interactions among the brain (neuro), language (linguistic), and the body that produce both effective and ineffective behavior. Proponents claim that NLP has cured phobias, allergies, and other problems in one or a few brief sessions. Its core postulates are: (a) people are most influenced by messages that reflect how they internally represent whatever they are doing; and (b) this representation is reflected by eye-gaze patterns, posture, tone of voice, and language patterns. The internal representation can be visual (picturing what they are involved with), auditory (hearing it sounded out), or can involve other senses. Proponents claim, for example, that a someone experiencing a mental image might use the words "I see," whereas someone in an auditory mode might say "that sounds right to me. Scientific studies have demonstrated no correlation between eye movements and visual imagery, reported thoughts, or language choices. A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective [19].

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html

 

[Finger]

Or is it that you've been neurolinguistically programmed to believe that neurolinguistic programming is quackery?

 

[hildrumen]

Thanks. Read the article and think i can convince him with that.

 

[Squawk]

http://www.mheap.com/nlp5.pdf

You might find that interesting.

As a quick aside I have seen research that shows that there is some validity to some aspects of NLP. In particular the idea of "rooting" an idea, much in the same way that you might associate a smell with an event. It has nothing to do with the modes of communicating though, all that auditory/visual stuff. If I can find a paper on it I'll post it. It's not strictly NLP, it's an idea that predates NLP (think sportsmen and routines), but it's the kind of thing that people might refer to as NLP, rooting an idea of, say, confidence in a particular action. A basketball player or tennis player bouncing a ball before shooting/serving, for example, could be used to re-inforce confidence. That's probably more CBT then NLP though.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay money for a session.