Eastoxfordhypnotist’s Weblog

Last week I attended a talk in Chichester by Andrew Austin, “Depression: a neurolinguistic perspective”.

I decided to go to the talk because I’ve been reading and enjoying articles on Andy’s web site – www.23nlpeople.com – for years. I also read his book “The Rainbow Machine – Tales from a Neurolinguists Journal” recently and found it to be riotously funny, insightful and a challenge to the self-satisfaction and complacency that seems rather too widepsread in the world of NLP. In short, its just about the best NLP book I’ve read since ‘Frogs into Princes’; get a copy and read it.

The talk itself concerned working with depressives. Andy outlined some simple models of how depressives maintain their state over time and how to intervene. He pointed out the common mistakes made in treating depressives, some of which were painfully familiar to me; for example, eliciting the depressive strategy all too easily elicits the state of misery, tears and a therapist as unresourceful as their client.

Andy’s approach is deeply influenced by provocative therapy. He outlined numerous tricks and techniques for disrupting the emotional games that therapists and their clients play: some of them very funny and some of them almost brutal in their directness.

It was not another training in NLP techniques, but was instead about when and how to use the NLP toolbox for treating depression, and the models outlined provided a rich map of opportunities for making effective interventions. Throughout the need for powerful state control was emphasised, that the therapist needs to maintain a state stronger than their clients’ misery.

Overall, it was a superb talk. Engaging, funny and informative, drawing on years of experience in “the trenches” of the mental health industry. I’d strongly recommend studying Andrew Austin’s work to any NLPer or therapist who wants to improve their game. To top it, Andy even promised to send participants an audio recording and notes from the talk, a refreshing change from most trainers who won’t let you make a recording and then want to flog you an accompanying CD set on top of the cost of the seminar.

16th May 2009

I know that many NLPers are largely unconcerned by the supposed lack of scientific research into the efficacy of NLP. When your own work proves it time after time, why would you feel the need for approval form the scientific establishment?

However, personally, I do feel that scientific validation would hasten the acceptance of NLP into the mainstream, which I regard as an obvious good.

I recently found an archive of research recently at the web site of the European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy, which explodes the myth that NLP lacks scientific validation. There are many many studies outlined here showing strong positive effectes for NLP treatment.

One German study of 55 therapy clients (including some with ‘psychotic’ symptoms) showed extraordinary results: “After treatment 1.9% of clients who had had NLP therapy felt no different, 38,9% felt better and 59.3% felt considerably better. None of those treated felt worse. In the control group meanwhile, 47.5% felt no different, 29.5% felt better and 6.6% felt considerably better. 9.8% of the controls felt worse and 4.9% felt considerably worse. At 6 month followup, 52% of clients who had had therapy felt considerably better, 28% felt better, 12% felt there was no change, and 8% felt worse.”

The archive also references studies proving that NLP can sort out phobias, PTSD, allergies, etc, improve spelling and even found evidence for eye-accessing cues. These are all things that competent NLPers have already seen for themselves, but the next time some one tells you that there is no scientific validation for NLP you can point them to this archive of research.

19th October, 2008

NLP is often criticised for lacking scientific credentials. However there are studies in experimental psychology that validate the assumptions of NLP.

One important assumption of NLP is that apparently metaphorical descriptions of our states can be more usefully interpreted as literal descriptions. i.e. when someone says something like “the world seems grey” or “I have a very clear idea” they are in fact referring to features of their own internal representations.

A psychology study at the University of Toronto provides experimental evidence to back up this idea. They wanted to test the common metaphor of coldness associated with social exclusion, as in being “frozen out”, an “icy stare” or being given “the cold shoulder”.

In one experiment a group of 65 subjects were asked to recall either a socially excluding memory or a socially inclusive one. Immediately afterwards they were asked to estimate the air temperature in the room. Those who had recalled the socially excluding experience on average estimated the temperature to be 3C lower than those who had recalled an inclusive experience. They literally felt colder.

In a second experiment subjects participated in a simple game of throwing and catching a ball. Half of the group were thrown the ball multiple times whilst half of the group were only thrown it twice and then ignored for the rest of the session. They were then asked to take part in a food marketing survey. They were asked to rate their preference for different kinds of hot and cold food.

Those who were excluded during the ball game showed a marked preference for hot foods over those who had participated fully.

This second experiment is, I think, less impressive as the ball throwers could be expected to have a higher body temperature due to the exercise involved.