|
Коль уж тут заговорили об НЛП, то хочу высказать свои соображения на тему. В общем, кто верит в НЛП - не буду спорить, но тем, кто не знает что такое НЛП, возможно, моя точка зрения поможет взглянуть на пробелму более широко. Как психолог интересовалась этой проблемой и те данные, которыми я располагаю, говорят о том, что метод весьма сомнительный. Собственный опыт столкновения с НЛПерами и посещение треннинга НЛП убедили в том же. Для интересующихся привожу кусок текста из английской Википедии (кто захочет - прочтет). Кто не прочтет или не читает на английском - там делается обзор научных исследований эффективности НЛП, большинство из которых сводится к тому, что НЛП - с научной точки зрения вещь сомнительная и труднопроверяемая. Как отмечается в данной статье United States National Research Council (национальный совет по иссдедованиям в США - подразделение американской национальной Академии наук) НЕ МОЖЕТ рекомендовать для использования такую не подтвержденную технику, как НЛП (в США - потому что НЛП там зародилось).
Analysis of research
[edit] Summary of research
In 1984, Sharpley undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existence and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an important underlying principle of NLP, and found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems and predicate matching.[10] Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions, identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed.[11]They stated "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP" adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling framework. Moreover the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training, there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology.
Sharpley (1987) responded with a review of a further 7 studies on the same basic tenets (totalling 44 including those cited by Eispruch and Forman).[12] This included Elich et al (1985) who tested the model that proposed a relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery, and found no support for this model. They added "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)".[13] Sharpley states that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but that none of these techniques originated within NLP, saying "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that as a counselling tool, the techniques and underlying theory unique to NLP, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported but that "if NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."
A study by Buckner et al (1987), (after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them.[14] However, the study did not cover whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system. They also made suggestions for further research. Krugman et al (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment.[15]They argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".
In 1988 a report by Druckman and Swets from the United States National Research Council, 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". They also concluded influence techniques of NLP were unsupported (including matching representational systems to gain rapport). Moreover "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". They conceded that the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration" [16] but NLP itself was not included in a follow up study on modeling (amongst other matters) by Swets and Bjork (1991) except by way of acknowledgment for the idea which has been pursued through other disciplines.[17]
Efran and Lukens (1990) stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".[18]
An editor has expressed concern that this article or section is unbalanced.
Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints, or by summarizing and use of summary style if it is too long already.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Barry Beyerstein (1990) asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[19] With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. "[19]
According to Von Bergen et al (1997) NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. They stated that "in relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error" and that "NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny" [20].
Carbonell and Figley of Florida State University Traumatology published an exploratory study (1999) on Visual/Kinesthetic Disassociation a component of NLP and three other novel treatments or power therapies for trauma (Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and Traumatic Incident Reduction), which was not designed to be a comparison study and the methodology used was the "systematic clinical demonstration (SCD) methodology.[21][22] This methodology guides the examination, but does not test the effectiveness of clinical approaches".[23] With reference to Brief Treatments for the Traumatized (including NLP) John Wilson states that while it is "adequately descriptive of the clinical procedures, there is little, if any, empirically validated dated outcome studies to substantiate a theory driven and research informed brief treatment (p. 173–207)."[24][22]
Donald Eisner (2000) in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', states that not "one iota of clinical research supports their (NLP proponents) claims. Apparently, no peer-reviewed researched has been published in over a decade. Moreover, there has been virtually no comparative research recently that assesses NLP's effectiveness." Eisner (2000) believes that with no clinical support, NLP proponents make grossly misleading claims about its effectiveness.[25]
Evidence-based psychologist Lilienfield et al (2002)), describe NLP as "a scientifically unsubstantiated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients" and include it in their description "(Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income".[26]
Grant Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".[27]
NLP is often associated with the work of the influential hypnotherapist Milton Erickson, upon whose techniques it was originally modelled to a large extent. However, other hypnotherapists have criticised the NLP interpretation of Erickson's work. Andre Weitzenhoffer, an influential Stanford researcher and former colleague of Erickson was an important critic of NLP. He rejects the NLP version of Ericksonian hypnosis, concluding that in terms of their evidence-base, “the neurolinguistic programming notions of Bandler and Grinder […] have very little substance and no empirical foundations.” (Weitzenhoffer, The Practice of Hypnotism, 2000: 108).
Albert Ellis, the founder of REBT, recently dismissed NLP as one of the “techniques that are avoided” in his approach, picking it out as his key example of a therapy rejected from evidence-based treatment because of its “dubious validity” (Dryden & Ellis, in Dobson, 2001: 331).
Michael Heap one of the UK's leading researchers on hypnotism, conducted a systematic review of the research literature on NLP and found, after analysis of over 60 research studies, that it was lacking in evidence,
The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye-movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions in everyday life.
Adding,
Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements. […] These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching, seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling. (Michael Heap, Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental & Forensic Practices, 1988)
|
Вход
Регистрация
Дневники
Галерея
ЧаВо
Правила
Поиск
для общей инфы
Фигня какая-то. Тренинг "Искусство продаж" тогда тоже нужно внести в список.
