Lauri Göhn 1998:
Neurolingvistinen ohjelmointi (nlp) lepää hataralla pohjalla.
- THE COMMITTEE found no evidence to support claims for the effectiveness of neurolinguistic programming (NLP) a widely touted system of procedures and models that purports to enable people to be more influential and better communicators. (Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1988)
- Neurolingvistinen ohjelmointi (nlp) on joukko kaupallisia populaaripsykologisia oppeja, jotka lepäävät hataralla pohjalla. Puolueettomia näyttöjä nlp:n toimivuudesta ei ole, vaikka kurssitus on levinnyt mm. Helsingin
- kesäyliopistoon. Seuraavat otteet ovat kirjasta ENHANCING HUMAN PERFORMANCE, Issues, Theories, and Techniques (National Academy Press, 1988), joka perustuu USA:n Army Research Instituten tilaamaan selvitykseen, josta vastasi National Academy of Sciences:
- ”In brief, the NLP system of eye, posture, tone, and language patterns as indexing representational patterns is not derived or derivable from known scientific work. Furthermore, there is no internal evidence or documentation) to support the system…. Overall there is little or no empirical evidenceto date to support either NLP assumptions or NLP effectiveness. Different critics may attach different values to the quality of these studies [testing one or another aspect of NLP], hut the fact remains that none supports the effectiveness of NLP in improving influence or skilled motor performance.”
- ”One widely known technique, neurolinguistic programming, was examined in some detail. Two general questions were asked. First, does NLP work? There is insufficient information to provide definitive answer to this question; all the evidence that does exist is either neutral or negative. Second, If aspects of NLP have potential merit, by what means they achieve their results? The committee concluded that the potentially positive aspects are not unique to NLP and are not related to what is offered as theoretical underpinning to an empirically developed set of procedures.”
- ”In sum, then, the absence of any evaluation of the effectiveness of NLP and the lack of any scientific basis for it constitute serious reservations against using it for expert modeling purposes, despite its uniqueness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique. If NLP is used for the limited task of constructing expert modeling systems for specific training programs, this should be done only if a program evaluation is incorporated into the implementation.”