When you say "experiment" are you wanting me to refer to a scientific study?
Because I'll be honest I have no source for you apart from Loughborough universities sociology under graduate course covers an entire module on NLP, so there's definitely something in it! I just have my own personal experiences and examples of how it's used in practice, especially in high level sport (something that I've been around from a young age)
Like I mentioned in my previous post on a daily basis I'm building up rapport with my customers by body language mirroring, I have noticed that by using specific language to certain customers they respond more positively, matching voice tonality when in sticky situations, to even when I'm coaching my under 17 cricket team I've used anchoring techniques to stop them from feeling nervous before games, visualisation.
I've tried anchoring while sarging by copying the Ross Jeffries attraction anchoring and now whenever I see the a certain girl in my local pub I flick the cognitive trigger (squeezing her hand in a particular way) she gushes over me and she has no understanding of why! (Married with 3 kids)
I'll first address your personal experience with NLP again. Correlation does not equal causation. It comes back down to placebo. Its just like many "pua techniques." Guy approaches girl "A" and uses PUA Technique "B" and Girl "A" shows interest in him. Guy thinks its because of using PUA Technique "B" but really the girl would have been into him anyways because she likes the way he looks. Correlation does not equal causation.
As for Loughborough university. I'm curious, does that course actually teach the use of NLP and imply that it works or does it simply cover NLP such as "in our efforts to cover everything we want to let you know there is this thing called NLP. This is how it works though its not clear as to if its valid scientifically or not."
If its taught just to cover all bases then I have no problem with it. If its taught as an actual valid method then I do have a problem with it and believe the students should get their money back.
One university teaching NLP is not a case for scientific validity. However, sense I'm asking for people to provide scientific studies that show NLP does work, I should provide studies that show it doesn't exactly hold up to its claims.
"A systematic review of experimental studies by Sturt et al (2012) concluded that "that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes." In his review of NLP, Stephen Briers writes, "NLP is not really a cohesive therapy but a ragbag of different techniques without a particularly clear theoretical basis...[and its] evidence base is virtually non-existent." Eisner writes, "NLP appears to be a superficial and gimmicky approach to dealing with mental health problems. Unfortunately, NLP appears to be the first in a long line of mass marketing seminars that purport to virtually cure any mental disorder...it appears that NLP has no empirical or scientific support as to the underlying tenets of its theory or clinical effectiveness. What remains is a mass-marketed serving of psychopablum."
"Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes". British Journal of General Practice (Royal College of General Practitioners) 62 (604): e757–64.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson. p. 11. ISBN 0273777734.
The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions (1st ed.). Praeger. pp. 158–9. ISBN 0275964132.
All of the above written by guys with actual degrees, all Ph.d's I believe.
Furthermore, "A research committee working for the United States National Research Council
led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP's assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence.
I have to be honest when I say that I don't know who every member of the research committee is but Daniel Druckman is a highly respected Ph.D.
Neuroscientists Sergio Della Sala and Barry Beyerstein wrote, "[NLP] began with some now outmoded information from legitimate psychology, linguistics and neuroscience that even most experts accepted back in the 1960s, when NLP first arrived on the scene. The nice thing about real science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is the former eventually corrects its mistakes as new discoveries emerge. NLP remains mired in the past or the never-was."
....I can go on for days with studies that disprove it. What I'm looking for is a legit study that shows evidence for NLP being legit.