NLP has been in existence for more than 30 years. One of it’s signature techniques is the Visual Kinesthetic (VK) dissociation process (sometimes known as the fast phobia cure) that is used to distance oneself from stressful experiences.
‘Real’ psychologists can be a bit ’sniffy’ about NLP processes citing the lack of scientific research in this field. They might find some reassurance from the article Analyse Emotions From a Distance.
The article reviews a study from Ethan Kross of the University of Michigan which suggests that the best way to cope with distressing situations is to analyse feelings from a psychologically distanced perspective.
It is an invaluable human ability to think about what we do, but reviewing our mistakes over and over, re-experiencing the same negative emotions the we felt the first time around, tends to keep us stuck in negativity. It can be very helpful to take a sort of mental time out, to sit back and review the situation from a distance
This effect revolves around a fundamental distinction in NLP.
When we are remembering (or imagining) a situation are we ‘fully in’ the situation seeing it from our own eyes, feeling the feelings and hearing the sounds as if they were happening to us right now? If so then we are ‘associated’ into that experience.
Or are we seeing the experience as an onlooker as if we are watching ourselves on TV, as if the experience was happening to someone else. If so then we are ‘dissociated’ from the experience.
Try a little thought experiment: Take a few moments to remember a mildly unpleasant experience. As you remember it are you seeing the experience through your own eyes (associated) or seeing yourself have that experience (dissociated).
How unpleasant is that memory?
Now lets change things.
If you were associated (seeing it through your own eyes) then imagine that you are watching the scene as if you were a bystander seeing that experience happen to someone else somewhere over there.
If you were already dissociated (seeing yourself in that experience) then imagine seeing the experience from a more distant viewpoint.
Now how unpleasant is that memory?
Many people find the more dissociated from memory they are the less unpleasant it feels. That’s the anecdotal evidence, now back to the study.
In a study involving 141 participants three different methods were tried to deal the memory of a stressful experience: association, distraction and dissociation.
In the ‘immersed-analysis’ [associated] group. Participants were told, “Go back to the time and place of the experience, and relive the situation as if it were happening to you all over again ..”
In the distance-analysis [dissociated] group. Participants were told, “Go back to the time and place of the experience … take a few steps back and move away from your experience … watch the experience unfold as if were happening all over again to the distant you ..”
The distracted group were just given distracting mental tasks to perform while remembering the experience.
In the short term, just after the task, participants who had used the distraction and the dissociation methods had lower levels of depression. When tested a few days or weeks later, those that had used the dissociation methods continued to show lower levels of depression. Suggesting that dissociation is helpful way of processing a distressing memory in the short term and that the relief persists over time. This won’t come as any surprise to the NLPers out there.
The article concludes:
“In future research, Kross plans to investigate whether self distancing is helpful in coping with other types of emotion, including anxiety, and the best ways fo teaching people how to engage in self-distanced analysis as they proceed with their lives, not just when they are asked to recall negative experiences in a laboratory setting.”
He might like to pick up a good NLP book or better still attend one of our NLP Practitioner Trainings where we could show him all sorts of effective ways to use association and disassociation.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
There were a battery of controled studies on NLP back in the 80s and the reviewers looked at the collection of studies and concluded that the results were negative. NLP failed the test.
Since then a few other studies have been published and as usual the majority indicate the ineffectiveness of NLP.
Here is a reliable article on the subject.
http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#
Its not just the findings of the testing. Its the actual concepts, plus the actions of NLP adherants. NLP concepts are erroneous from the get-go. NLP is also referred to as a new alternative religion, and some call it a cult. It has to be, because its followers use nothing but logical fallacies, group pressure, and enemy building in order to survive.
NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience in university courses on clear thinking and scientific literacy.
Of course occasionally an NLPer will refer to the confirmatory studies and ignore the much larger proportion that show failure. NLP is for the modern carpetbagger. It is to be ridiculed from a distance, and its victims should be pittied.
A.Lawrence
“There were a battery of controled studies on NLP back in the 80s and the reviewers looked at the collection of studies and concluded that the results were negative. NLP failed the test.”
Which battery of controlled studies and by who? Who where the reviewers? What were the results? What test did NLP fail? Could these studies include the ‘Dillingham‘ and ‘Hogan‘ experiments by any chance?
“Since then a few other studies have been published and as usual the majority indicate the ineffectiveness of NLP.”
Citations please, if you are going to make a claim like that I think you need to be a more specific.
Personally I think there has been a lack of research studies in NLP in the past however there are research projects and conferences in the works for example:
http://www.nlprandr.org/UniversityofSurreyAbstracts/tabid/213/Default.aspx
“Here is a reliable article on the subject.
http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#”
Hmm, reliable? It has a lot in common with this article, an early version of a Wikipedia entry on NLP
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=52593697#Fundamentals
Notice at the top of this version of the entry there is a message from the moderators saying (with understatement that would make any Brit proud) “The neutrality of this article is disputed”
Contrast this article with the current wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
Which includes a more thoughtful section on scientific criticisms of NLP
“Its not just the findings of the testing.”
Which findings? Which test?
“Its the actual concepts, plus the actions of NLP adherants.”
Which concepts? Which actions? Which adherents?
“NLP concepts are erroneous from the get-go.”
Which concepts and how are they erroneous?
“NLP is also referred to as a new alternative religion, and some call it a cult.”
Really? Referred to by whom? Who calls it that? This is a (vague) ‘appeal to authority’ – a logical fallacy.
“It has to be, because its followers use nothing but logical fallacies, group pressure, and enemy building in order to survive.”
This sounds like one description of the current American administration. Hmmm, is that a cult? … Now that I think about it that sounds like a description of all political administrations.
Using the words adherents and followers doesn’t make NLP a cult. Given the various opinions within the NLP community about a whole host of issues the logical fallacies and the group pressure doesn’t seem to be working too well, and who is the enemy?
“NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience in university courses on clear thinking and scientific literacy.”
That’s interesting, where?
“Of course occasionally an NLPer will refer to the confirmatory studies and ignore the much larger proportion that show failure.”
They might do that. Of course occasionally a critic of NLP will refer to some critical studies and ignore the fact that very little good research has been done yet – so the effectiveness of NLP, or more accurately the effects of some of the models of NLP (NLP is not a theory in itself) is, as yet, unknown.
“NLP is for the modern carpetbagger.”
NLP could be used by a carpetbagger, morphine could be used by an addict, kitchen knives could be used be a serial killer. The user of an object or idea is responsible for it’s use. NLP could also be well used (and is) by therapists, teachers, managers, etc, etc.
“It is to be ridiculed from a distance, and its victims should be pittied.”
That’s an ‘appeal to spite’ another logical fallacy.
You are clearly unimpressed with NLP and it’s practitioners. I wonder what led you to that opinion.
NLP has now been identified as one of a top ten most discredited interventions according to solid research (Norcross et al)
Just as it says in the link above to the Greenfield article that is full of rigorous published research
Neurolinguistic programming sounds like pseudoscience from the getgo
People who teach it are charlatans especially after knowing that it lacks conceptual and empirical support. People who lap it up are scientifically illiterate and socially inept.