You mentioned eye-assessing cues in your comment. Eye contact is a pretty hot topic for us presenters. In our training course we use an eye contact exercise to get delegates to experience how eye contact consumes cognitive load (time it takes to calculate 24 x 27 while maintaining eye contact versus a similar problem with eyes shut, now approximately 1000 delegates show mean times of 30 seconds and 10 seconds respectively).

We have concluded that breaking eye contact frees up cognitive load for other tasks. The implication for presenters is not to lock gazes with an audience member if you want them to think about what you said or asked.

So I am convinced that breaking eye contact signifies a need for available cognitive load, but does the direction of the eye movement tell us something about what that cognitive load is being used for (ala NLP)? We have no research that indicates so. Instead, we teach people to look for a break in eye contact as a significant indication of thought, and to rely on the whatever triggered the break in eye contact as an indicator of the subject of thought, and the next thing they say as an indicator of conclusions of this thought.

Some people believe that it tells them something else, and I am sure they act on it without causing any harm (its not like we are using it to determine truth or guilt for capital crimes) but it certainly isn’t without doubt and so relying on it and stating it as fact, calls into question the rest of the package of belief system.

As to the ‘NLP requires faith’ argument offence, I have to say the fact that you find it offensive does seem to me to prove my assertion that it is a belief system. For example had I said “I do not believe that the world is round,” I suspect nobody would be offended, they would just write me off as an idiot. So if challenging truth cannot cause offense, then offense caused by challenging as yet unproven argument seems to me to imply that these arguments are right to be challenged.

And as to trying the techniques myself, I may but I haven’t finished exploring sticking pins into dolls of bullet point users yet. Give me a chance!

Do eye accessing cues work? Does the fast phobia cure? What about the language patterns generated by Milton Erickson and used by hypnotherapists around the world? Do ALL of these things need to be true for NLP to be valid or just one of them?

Personally, I don’t go on faith, I go on results, but I do agree with you up to a point on some of the literature – especially the ‘philosophy’ as you call it. My background is in computer science and the attractive thing about NLP to someone such as myself is how much of it is very logical and procedural. IT people like that kind of thing. Unfortunatelly NLP also attracts a lot of people who really are looking for some kind of belief system to hang their hat on, and NLP has none so they have to add their own dogma.

As to your line that NLP requires faith – I find that somewhat offensive – as someone who doesn’t ‘BELIEVE’ in NLP then perhaps you should try using the phobia cure and see if you get any results. If you haven’t tried any NLP techniques then for you to attack it without testing it yourself says something about your own prejudices.

The von Bergen paper is, I believe, the classic, cited paper on the area. I’m sure that there was also a meta-analysis of the NLP literature in the late 80s or early90s that was (rightly) dismissive of the approach. The links between representations and linguistic expression will be virtually non-existant and I would bet a pound to a penny that the link between eye movement and either representation or linquigistic expression will be even less.

I just had a quick play with Google Scholar and I imagine that

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

dismantles NLP quite effectively and that

Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 622-625.

would be sufficient to remove any lingering doubts.

If such techniques like that of those mentioned in your video were introduced to the younger generations I am sure I, a more pleasant schooling experience with greater knowledge and success would follow. However, we often don’t think like that when we are very young.

That said, since reviewing this video I have begun to draft a 10 – 15 minute session that mentions such methods of learning along with other techniques and hints ahead of training sessions.

It is my intention and belief that by making the people with whom I work more aware of these techniques and others like that mentioned in Tony Buzan’s (The Memory Book); that personnel in the office will be able to retain more information in shorter spaces of time, and thus become more effective within the business.

Thanks again for creating this video, I found it most informative.

Mark Jones
Learning and Development Consultant

Glad we all agree it’s stupid.. thanks for commenting!

Besides being a huge waste of paper and a needless expense, I agree that handouts disrupt the carefully crafted flow of information that every speaker should create for his or her presentation.

Again, you are right on the mark. As a 21 year sales & marketing executive (although I’m a degreed design engineer), I can vouch for the consistent requirement for people wanting to leave slides, see presentations, etc. I truly believe you are one of the few who understand the “sales” side of presenting (addressing the painj), and I am always interested in hearing how you can debate the traditional presentation mindset (as I continue my own freelance business on the side of my Director of Sales functions).

Kudos…and keep up the good work!

Yuriy