UKC

Awesome article Tom, a really interesting read!  

The paragraph involving the man who farts in lifts made me happy. Ha!

While it doesn't necessarily invalidate anything Powell says, I'm immediately wary of anyone who claims to be a "Master Practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming", as if that isn't something I could order off the internet. NLP is pseudoscience and has been widely discredited.

'An example of this is the feeling of dread when your friends ask you how your day at the crag went,'

No, don't have this. 

Does that get me off the rest of the NLP stuff?

Couldn’t take the rest of the article seriously because of the above.

"If I am standing in a lift filled with 10 people and I let out an audible and prolonged fart it would be socially normal for me to feel ashamed of myself because it is in our culture in the UK to be shamed for our bodily emissions (unlike in a group of hippos where I could spray my poo with my tail to impress female hippos)."

Perhaps the finest sentence I've ever read on UKC.

NLP is woo-wah. It's not possible to be a master of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Scientific_criti...

I have to agree no grounded scientific research on it whatsoever and no authority group or accreditation to ensure standardization of quality of delivery. I use mindfulness for climbing, something that has a vast array of scientific research and seems to work very well for me! 

Just cut straight to the chase with the Rock Warriors Way

What?

And avoid the NLP stuff dude

'Master Practioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming' has got about as much scientific credibility as a Gypsy fortune teller on Blackpool pier!

I think the criticism of this article isn’t quite right. It draws thoughtfully on a broad range of psychological theory which is used in a large number of evidence based practices. For example recognising how significant personal events and early experiences form part of a ‘personal narrative’ or ‘self-others belief’ and go on to impact sporting performance. It’s a shame to reject such important ideas outright because of a title, or claim that the eastern philosophy / practice of the rock warriors way is ‘cutting to the chase’ somehow. I’m sure the author of rock warrior would take time to recognise the value in this article. Maybe the question should be ‘why do I feel the need to criticise this article?’ 

And the answer should be because it announces itself as being based on pseudoscience - that should at least make the reader highly sceptical; how is the layman meant to know which bits, if any, are based on anything of value? My own response was to decide I have better things to do than read it.

Because the author (Or UKC Editorial team) has chosen to introduce himself with reference to a dubious qualification for a non existent branch of science.

If, for example, the article's subject was preventing and treating hand injuries and the author's sole qualification was Grand Wizard of Homeopathy, I think it would be reasonable to be skeptical of the author's conclusions - even if they turn out to be valid.

Perhaps because I am happy going out to the crag having a laugh and falling off or backing off or getting up stuff without wondering about all this Bullshit?

Just a thought

TL, DR.

The digested read, digested: You're overthinking it dude. Get your eyes off your navel and watch me (no, not voyeuristically)

I confess that my thoughts were that all this 'social fears' stuff was just a strawman. But then I realised I don't give a shit about who knows that I'm crap at climbing, so I don't have any social fears about it.

If I keep saying 'social fears' enough, do I NLP myself into having social fears...?

Maybe people should just stop worrying about what other people think about them, and just get on and enjoy themselves (providing they're not harming anyone else, that is).

The problem with having an open mind to everything, is you end up with a head filled with shite.

Any reference to the RWW always has to be firmly  tongue in cheek! 

This was not worth reading. Uninteresting ideas based on pseudo-science, just as bad as the kitchen-psych article on "mindfulness" (https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/mindfulness_in_climbing-9698)

I go climbing on rock and like it, the end.......

I'm actually quite interested in this topic (unlike some above - why comment?) and willing to keep an open mind beyond the introduction... but this article is just way too long. I think ukc should stick to slightly more digestible versions for preference.

Edit to add: if you want to have long in depth stuff like this then a podcast would be a better format. 

I gave an enormous amount of thought [about 2 minutes] to Neuro-Linguistic Programming and how it can benefit me

I then decided to ignore it and just have a nice treacle sandwich before climbing

Works for me

Um.

No.

Looking forward to next week's article

"Homeopathic Performance Enhancing Supplements" 

This crap rivals that water alignment, IR storing bullshit UKC were touting a few years ago. 

Please, please apply some scientific rigour to your editing UKC. 

Somehow I knew responses would be like this. You'd think folk might discuss sections of the article, even dismissively, rather than just calling it crap, but that was always going to be too much to hope for.

That would be like discussing the merits of Creationism.

Depends if you just want to discuss 'isms' or not. I'm sure a creationist might write something of interest within an article, even if their beliefs are difficult to take seriously. 

I've read some drivel in my time, but that lot takes the biscuit!

Couldn’t be bothered reading this beyond the intro because it’s just not relevant for me. I don’t really feel pressure from other people watching or asking how well or badly I did on a given route. Climbing isn’t generally a competition (unless you’re actually in a comp) and in any case unless you’re a top end climber there’s always going to be someone better than you. If you do well on a route, great. Perhaps encouragement from others might have even helped? If you fail on an onsight or redpoint or whatever, chalk it down to experience, learn from it and try to do better next time. If you’re actually distracted by people shouting for example, that’s one thing, but if you have a real issue with people watching you, perhaps it’s because you feel that you’re climbing to perform and impress others, rather than just doing the best you can for yourself.

I’m not sure what you mean by science? In my experience it’s a pretty broad church. Lots of the theories and ideas in the article are part of evidenced based psychological interventions which have been well tested, others not so much. It is hard to prove the underlying theory is correct though. I.e what is the mechanism of change, and there’s lots of different schools of thought in that e.g. behaviourism. 

Certainly the research in these areas e.g mindfulness, cognitive therapy (both talked about above) is a ‘solid’ as lots of the Physio and exercise therapy I’ve studied over the years. Which when you start to really look behind the ‘science’ doesn’t go much further than saying - moving your limbs and breathing in and out is good for you. This hasn’t stopped it being an effective intervention for many. 

As Simon said it’s probably a bit too long and packs a lot in. 

Maybe you could provide us with a shorter version only including the evidenced based bits and leaving out the bollocks then

It's been changed from "Master practitioner of NLP" to "Climbing coach Tom Powell".

Post it down the memory hole Winston

He also claims to be Hypnotherapist which is even more smoke and mirrors than NLP which is saying something. The article may touch on evidence based Psychological therapies however is Tom qualified to practice them as they don’t appear to be listed in his qualifications.

They haven't edited the OP:

"Tom Powell would be surprised to meet a climber who hasn't let social pressures affect their climbing in a negative way. A Master Practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming and hypnotherapy, Tom shares some tips for dealing with social fears at the wall or at the crag..."

So much for believing in his approach if he hides it that easily on being challenged

It's my understanding that the Myers Briggs test has also been widely discredited. The philosophy section (my area of expertise) is far-fetched but there do seem to me to be some decent bits in amongst the verbage. 

Holding up mindfulness as some kind of more scientific approach is not really valid. There is a lot of decent (but disputed) evidence that mindfulness is good for stress and depression but none (that I know of) that it helps your climbing. Much of the 'scientific' research on the subject is partisan and only just above the pseudoscience level.  

Is hypnotherapy smoke and mirrors? Not sure about that. Obviously you can get charlatans claiming to be able to do it when they can't, but that's not the same thing.

I went for hypnosis twice to try and beat the ever-present grog monster but when the hypnotist very quietly & calmly said I was about to enter "a new dimension" I burst out laughing thinking about crawling through that figure-8-shaped hole through the base of Castle Crag at Araps where [if stoned enough] one pops out in 'The 8th dimension' 'round the back. Ha! All complete b*ll*x.

Still says "He is a Master Practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming and hypnotherapy, and studies Non Violent Communication. " at the end. And isn't Jung (frequently mentioned) a bit discredited nowadays and was  more  a psychoanalyst than a psychologist ?

I'm sure he's a good coach but why does he see the need to adopt the pseudo-scientific jargon?

spelling edited

I took the time to read the article in full as I'm always on the look out for practical tips on emotional discipline when leading. It's my biggest single impediment to pushing my grade. 

It doesn't take long to read and has a few simple suggestions that look worth trying. 

While the title refers to social pressures, most of the article addresses a wider range of failure causes. 

Unless the practioner is a clinical psychologist it’s snake oil.

It seems strange to me to actively expend effort in vocally disregarding or bashing something because you think it doesn't apply to you. And that in some way it must be made up crap because of this. Sections of the article actually mention that people view the world and respond and react to situations in very individual ways. Just because you don't "get" it or arent effected by it doesn't mean that the topics raised don't impact others who wish it didn't.

I thought it was an interesting read and food for thought regardless of evidence base or scientific rigour. I have a medical background and a lot of practice isn't evidence based, or is based on opinion.

Well said

Regardless of what anybody thinks of the content, the article is just too long (and too dry) to be interesting for me. Sorry.

Care to give a couple of papers from decent journals (say impact >5) backing that up?

Thought not.

There's no real evidence for NLP; there's less for mindfulness.

Ok.  To quote the article:

"There is no denying that climbing is...

...

...

...especially suited for those who are frustrated with the righteous tone of self help books"

Seems a fair summary

I'd add ''Happy" by Derren Brown to your reading list. A comprehensive introduction to the benefits of a more considered life.

T.

True perhaps, but that's more of an indictment of current medical practice rather than a point in favour of the article. Or do you think 'opinion' trumps 'evidence'?

I've moved on from the Rock warrior's way to the Weekend Warriors way having spent the last 2 days messing around outdoors and not falling off. All I need to do now is write it up with some fancy theories on why and I will be rich?

Actually I think if NLP's can get people to pay for advice to be happy good luck to them but along with a certain group of fiction peddlers don't come knocking on my door.  

Crikey, maybe ukc should consult NICE before daring to publish any health related articles. 

Or psychiatrist, psychotherapist, psychiatric nurse, counsellor, counselling psychologist.... etc 

Based on how these threads always go, I don't think I'd ever submit an article to UKC. So much negativity!

I think many climbers, and specifically many young climbers will identify with some of the situations described in this article and, in my opinion, there is some really sound and applicable advice in it.

I think it's a fair point that the article is too long. I don't know how most people read UKC but I suspect many log on for a quick break at work. No-one has time at work to read an article this long. So UKC maybe should think more about their target audience and giving editing guidelines to people who submit articles.

Many of the other points in this thread are just examples of fallacious reasoning and using a 'rule of thumb' judgement to dismiss a whole work on the basis of a specific they disagree with. In this case people have read the headline, know that 'NeuroLinguistic Programming' has no scientific consensus behind it (yet), and have used this to rubbish the whole article and all the concepts therein without reading it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_illicit_transference

Depends largely on where you are in life and how comfortable you are in yourself.

Some will buy in to it. Others may be happier and not worrying or needing Social re-enforcement may simply regard it as unnecessary.

Each to their own but I don't think I would be buying it.

There's only usually negativity when they're full of bullshit and wankery.

Believe me, Roland, no matter what you've written and where it's been published, every article on here is a 'heart in mouth' experience.

Kind of like arranging a sad cluster of little RPs and launching off up a blank looking Cloggy wall on a misty day, hoping things will work out - but knowing they may not.

All best wishes,

Mick

Ha, a great analogy, Mick. But your articles aren't met with negativity, and there's a reason for that.

NLP has had a lot of time to gain some evidential robustness but hasn't