NLP and Proto-Science

Sometimes Neuro-linguistic Programming is termed as proto-science, which infers a model or a hypothesis that has not been sufficiently tested and proven using scientific methods, where the techniques used are aligned with existing science, or are only minimally inconsistent.

The degree of inconsistency is within reasonable and acceptable limits. The term can also be used to make an assertion that the approximate, practical, irreproducible knowledge of Neuro-linguistic Programming can be translated into scientific field of study in the future. One of the Neuro-linguistic Programming cofounders, John Grinder stated that Neuro-linguistic training could be structured and developed into a legitimate scientific field. In the book “Whispering in the Wind”, the authors Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder suggest the steps that need to be taken in order to develop the practice of Neuro-linguistic Programming into a more scientific endeavor, with rigorous efforts and motivation towards the goal.

Several studies have been done on Neuro-linguistic Programming since early 1980s, which can be broadly categorized into three types, namely studies, Meta studies and research in relevant domains such as neuroscience and cognitive science. Another type of proof is also present, known as anecdotal evidence. This evidence is usually the reports generated from the Neuro-linguistic Programming patients or clients, listing their problem areas and whether or not the issue was resolved using Neuro-linguistic Programming techniques. These reports are usually not meticulously followed or verified, and the analysis is not rigorous in nature. Anecdotal evidence could be used for further research by using the results as an indication of the success of the technique. However, scientists refuse to accept the anecdotal evidence as valid proof for efficacy of Neuro-linguistic Programming techniques.

Many supporters of Neuro-linguistic Programming believe that it is a form a science, because it has the structure of established knowledge and the potential to be tested and proven scientifically. The ability to make sound judgments and accurate diagnosis based on the human sensory system is known to be practically impossible in science as well as Neuro-linguistic programming. However, creating a hypothesis of the problem at hand and analyzing it using physical observations is possible. Once a hypothesis is created, generalizations regarding the concerned subject can be made in Neuro-linguistic programming, similar to the theories formulated in science. These theories or generalizations can then be tested and proven, to a certain degree of predictability.

Conclusion

However, the amount of variation between every experiment performed on the same or different individual is high, mainly because of the vagaries of the human character. Every individual exhibits a certain amount of impulsiveness, skepticism and resistance to therapy resulting in varied results. In addition, several possible solutions to a given problem can exist in the Neuro-linguistic Programming structure. By restricting the trial process in order to prove a technique, the very meaning or significance of the technique could be lost. That means the parameters defined for proving a technique should not be too rigid, such that the technique itself becomes unworkable.

As a general rule, the techniques taught in Neuro-linguistic training when applied to a patient could be either successful or ineffective. The technique it itself cannot be termed useless or bogus in general, if it has proved beneficial for some individuals. Therefore, scientific study must be made taking this into effect and considering that the techniques are used to modify the neurological structures of the patient via an indirect process.

The benefits of the technique are subjective, and the unusual abilities of these allegorical tools are observable. In addition to this, some form of direct testing is also possible. With modern technological advances, it is now possible to monitor some neurological processes and verify the effect of a technique clinically.

NLP and Proto-Science

Conclusion

Tags