Thursday, March 14, 2013

#467: Richard Bandler

Richard Wayne Bandler is an author and self-help guru, best known for inventing (with John Grinder) “Neuro-linguistic programming” (NLP), a collection of concepts and techniques “intended to understand and change human behavior-patterns” (closely related to “Natural Horsemanship”). He has also developed other trademarked systems such as Design Human Engineering® and Neuro Hypnotic Repatterning™. None of it has any basis in reality – it is purportedly based on transformational grammar, the basis of which Bandler’s audience doesn’t understand anyway – and NLP has aptly been termed cargo-cult science (or a mild version of Scientology) by people who know what they are talking about, insofar as it is built on a theory of mind that is demonstrably false. But all of it belongs to the kind of fluffy, popular self-help woo – a central element in the human potential movement, in fact – that remains immensely popular and ensures that Bandler stays filthy rich. “Fraud” might be the first word that comes to mind (he often refers to himself as having a doctorate, which is, uh, a controversial claim) but there is no obvious reason to believe that Bandler doesn’t actually believes he’s onto something.

Adherents of NLP attempt to apply it to psychotherapy, healing, communication, self development, teaching English, treating psoriasis, curing cancer, achieving weight loss (the obvious one), and dating (links to these claims on the NLP website can be found here, but I won’t link to them directly). The bullshit is described in perceptive detail here, and this is a pretty good summary. This might be relevant as well.

Diagnosis: Major bullshitter and bullshit promoter. The level of danger is a little hard to assess, but pushing blatant pseudo-science cannot have a good outcome in the long run.


  1. You do realize that NLPt, or Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy is a form of psychotherapy accredited with all the major European psychotherapy associations? As such, claims of NLP not being grounded in reality, being fluffy, etc. are quite incongruent with actual research results.

    1. Thanks, Artur. This hack has not investigated Bandler at all

    2. As opposed to you, apparently, I have actually look at the research, and it is pretty conclusive. If psychotherapy associations nevertheless continue to promote it, that is a pretty damning indictment of those associations. NLP is pure pseudoscience.

  2. The author of this ridiculous hit-piece is surely a shill? To paraphrase Bandler: "I'm not a theoretician - I just look for what works". For the millions of people who subscribe to Bandler's techniques, it does works in reality. "it is built on a theory of mind that is demonstrably false": No, it is demonstrably true - Look up the word 'demonstration'. The mind can be reasonably viewed as having two phases - the one conscious, the other sub-conscious. The consciousness can direct and impress the sub-conscious. It can also impress the minds of other individuals. The author of this 'article' is ignorant, misinformed, or just a plain imbecile. Bandler is a diamond.

    1. I am not sure what you think your point about the conscious and sub-conscsious mind is supposed to illustrate w.r.t NLP. Bandler might be looking for what works, but the research on NLP is pretty damning. It is pseudoscience through and through.

      More demonstration? Check out for instance:
      Sharpley, Christopher .F. (1984). "Predicate matching in NLP: a review of research on the preferred representational system.". Journal of Counseling Psychology (31): 238–48.
      Sharpley, Christopher F. (1 January 1987). "Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?". Journal of Counseling Psychology 34 (1): 103–107. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.103.

      Heap. M., (1988) Neurolinguistic programming: An interim verdict. In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm, pp. 268–280.

      Daniel Druckman; John A. Swets (1988). "Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques". Human Resource Development Quarterly (Washington, DC: National Academy Press) 1 (2): 202–206. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920010212.

      Druckman, Daniel (1 November 2004). "Be All That You Can Be: Enhancing Human Performance". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (11): 2234–2260. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x.

      von Bergen, C. W.; Gary, Barlow Soper; Rosenthal, T.; Wilkinson, Lamar V. (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8 (4): 281–294. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403.

      Witkowski, Tomasz (1 January 2010). "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?". Polish Psychological Bulletin 41 (2). doi:10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0.

      Or for a good, if old, summary,this one:
      Beyerstein, B.L (1990). "Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age". International Journal of Mental Health 19 (3): 27–36 (27).

      But you don't really know how one actually investigates hypotheses in a credible manner, do you? After all, in your one-paragraph post you manage to commit two ridiculous fallacies, appeal to popularity as well as to conspiracy.