Dear Marshall:

To quote from a website on Neuro-Linguistic Programming:

The basic premise of NLP is that the words we use reflect an inner, subconscious perception of our problems. If these words and perceptions are inaccurate, as long as we continue to use them and to think of them, the underlying problem will persist. In other words, our attitudes are, in a sense, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This sounds good and is actually true. But, there are many problems with the actual technique of NLP. Wikipedia accurately describes the three main criticism of NLP from the scientific community:

There are three main criticisms of NLP:

1. NLP pretends to be a science, but is really a pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method. Its very name is a pretense to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. It has a large collection of scientific sounding terms, like eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, primary representational systems, modalities and submodalities. Corballis (1999) argues that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability". According to Beyerstein (1995) "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." 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." Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory.

   2. There is little or no evidence or research to support its often extravagant claims. Heap (1988) remarks that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders have made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there is no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither is this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spend much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP. Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence. Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change". Tosey and Mathison say that "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".

   3. A significant amount of experimental research suggests that the central claims of NLP are unjustified. See NLP and science for a description of the literature. The majority of empirical research was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s and consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use. A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley in 1984, followed by another review in 1987 in response to criticism by Einspruch and Forman, concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about 'preferred representational systems'. The conclusions of Heap and Sharpley have been contested on the grounds that the studies demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the claims of NLP and that the interviewers involved in the many of the studies had inadequate training/competence in NLP.

NLP-like techniques are used by cults like est. The idea of "programming" is dangerous. We are not creatures to be "programmed" but rather children of God who need to work toward living our lives and ordering our thinking and behavior to the will of God. This is not done by "programming" but by free will decisions to love and choose God.

Biofeedback is another alternative therapy. Its use has shown some promise with ADHD and a few other conditions, but the science is not quite there yet.

Even if legitimate uses for biofeedback are proven, there is still the problem of its misuse as a means to to enter into altered states of consciousness that may cause spiritual harm. The use of biofeedback for anxiety and such are better handled by more traditional methods to deal with anxiety (and cheaper).

For the Christian, NLP should most certainly be avoided. Biofeedback might have some usage in very limited circumstances, but usually more traditional methods are just as effective.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary