NLP, Commercialization, Credibility, MBTI
Robert initially writes this as a concern about the field of NLP:
If you are the type of person who looks at the “proof” about Scientology only on scientology sites, then great. The problem here is that the NLP machine is a “business enterprise”, and as such any research from NLP sources has to be examined within that light.
In response someone posted the issue of whether commercialization is an issue, and whether a drug like penicillin should be less regarded because it’s manufactured as a commercial product (which is a terrible comparison, by the way for a number of reasons.
In response: Robert:
I’m sorry if my point wasn’t clear. The point I am making applies to ANY research publications that are not “independent” of the originators of the “thing” they research. The exact same issues apply to both the
nlp sites cited and let’s say the Society for Psych. Type.
There’a very big difference between research published in an APA journal lke the J. of Applied Psychology, compared to the “Journal of NLP” (if such exists), where the journal itself is produced by those who
train and profit from NLP practitioners.
That aside, I believe Bandler (or Grinder, I always get them confused), and many that have come in the NLP movement present exactly your argument….that because it “works”, there’s no interest in theory or
research.
In fact, it’s so basic to NLP philosophy it’s easy to spot a closet NLP’er from a mile away because they almost always resort to the “hey, it works” approach.
IMHO, this may leave just a few questions unanswered.