Putting the record straight
Neither Scientology nor NLP has subjected themself to peer review. Both NLP and Scientology have trademark protection and secrecy.
Once again, an attack on the FoNLP by someone who clearly knows nothing about it.
(Sorry, I realise this person is a senior member, but unfortunately that doesn't mean s/he can't make mistakes.)
1. NLP is a specific modelling technique, nothing else.
2. Critics who make sweeping generalizations about whatever it is they think of as "NLP" are "ten a penny". The question here is: Which SPECIFIC techniques are the same in Scientology and the FoNLP.
(The FONLP is the "field of NLP". It includes the modelling technique, a host of related concepts and techniques and concepts, and training in NLP and/or any of the related techniques and concepts.)
Derren Brown (and other skeptics) criticize it for this reason. I have heard Derren Brown say (of NLP) their MIGHT be something there, but nobody knows because it is a closed system.
Interesting - but twaddle. There is NO copyright on "NLP" or "Neuro-Linguistic Programming". And virtually all of the authentic techniques have appeared in books you can purchase on Amazon.
Why Derren Brown says what Derren Brown says, or is alleged to have said, is only known to Derren Brown. Since he was neither a co-creator or developer of the field I don't really see what relevance this has to determining what the FoNLP is really about.
My guess is that NLP is a money making cult which has just borrowed off of Milton Erikkson (like every most others with 'new' ideas in hypnosis). Hubbard pilfered from Erikkson, including the confusion technique. His lectures are riddled with it.
Oh dear!
Milton Erickson's name is NOT spelt with two "k's". And "NLP" is NOT a cult.
Andy Bradbury's site has some relevant comments about the latter point, too:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax23.htm
As to "borrowing", the co-creators - Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik - made it clear that they were building on other people's work right from the first book on the subject - 'The Structure of Magic I', published in 1975 (the acknowledgement is at the start of the bibliography).
In fact they "borrowed" from Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls, Noam Chomsky, George Miller, the field of cybernetics, etc., etc., etc.
In fact one of the reasons why the authentic FoNLP is such good value for money is because it is based on techniques that were already in use by people who were recognised by their contemporaries as being outstanding exponents of the skills B, G and P modelled them for.
Oops, I nearly forgot. There are two sides to the "peer review" question. And guess who has covered the subject:
See
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax22.htm
for research relating to the FoNLP, especially in relation to education
See
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax21.htm
for an example of two people using linguistic techniques found in the FoNLP in an attempt to trash the FoNLP
See:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm
for details of a number of supposedly "scientific" studies of the FoNLP
And see
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/norcross.html
for a sidebar in that article which has some fairly uncompromising comments on the real value of "peer reviewing" by the editor of an internationally-recognised peer reviewed medical journal.
