Life coaching, and how I was seduced by nonsense
Just over a year ago I started seeing a Life Coach. Six months ago I abruptly stopped seeing a Life Coach. I think enough time has passed for me to get a decent perspective on the events, and to explain how I ended up wanting to believe somebody who was telling me that any problems I have may stem from a previous life.
A year ago I wasn't having a good time. I was taking two A-levels under a self-study course and by late spring was faltering in a big way. I had no clue what I'd do once the exams were over, nor any real aims in life. Although pretty much over the upset from my break-up, I was still struggling with being on my own. My parents had heard good things about a local Life Coach, and, very kindly, offered to pay. I looked over the aims and benefits of life coaching, and this is the kind of thing that came up:
Coaching is future orientated and although touches on the past, it is predominantly focused on creating a better future. It is very practical in its approach, as it involves proactively planning specific actions, which will enable step changes to be made. Progress is often rapid and hence can be fairly short term.
It certainly seemed to be what I needed, and I agreed to give it a try.
In the first lesson we used some kind of chart to break my life down into various components - friends, health, romance, work etc. - and figured out which areas needed improvement. Self-image and work were the big issues.
For the next few months I saw her on a weekly basis. We'd talk about my week, going over anything that had upset me or I'd found difficult, then move onto ways to improve things. Chief among these was the idea of affirmations - small phrases of confidence such as 'I am likeable' that I should say to myself as often as possible. The theory was that after a while they would 'sink in' and would become my default thoughts, as it were. Another technique was the trigger: whenever I felt particularly happy or confident I should do some action - I used touching a particular knuckle - and then whenever I needed a confidence boost I would repeat the action, which would trigger associated positive feelings. The trigger was undoubtedly the most impressive technique; it really did help on a number of occasions. Affirmations I'm not so sure about.
In hindsight, simply spending an hour talking to somebody was as helpful as anything else. Maybe it played to my bad habit of attention-seeking, but having somebody external who seemed genuinely interested in helping me was undeniably pleasant. She helped me figure out what I really wanted to do with my life. I realised, through talking things out, that the activity I enjoyed above all else was writing. We figured out a plan to help me develop this, while still making money by other means. This was great, and exactly what I needed.
At one point I remember her saying something like "you're a really likeable chap". That, I think, was a mistake. Thereafter I didn't want to tell her anything that I thought would change this opinion. I remember feeling terribly guilty after flicking onto some softcore sex flick on the Sci-Fi channel. It objectifies women, doesn't it? Did enjoying that mean I was a bad person? At the time, I thought it did (I've since resolved this particularly quandary, but that's another post) but I didn't mention it as I didn't want her not to like me. I think the coaching became less helpful after this point.
Although I was possibly backing away slightly, the by now fortnightly meetings were still productive. Then, not long before christmas, I had a bad week for one reason or another - can't remember why, now - and wasn't very happy. Towards the end of our meeting, she said something like "do you want to fix this problem once and for all?". Naturally, I said yes. She explained that the cause of my lack of self-confidence was one particular event. It's possible I wouldn't even remember it, but this one event had started off the problem, and problems had spread like cracks ever since.
Alarm bells rang. This sounded a little dodgy. But, then, I'm not a psychologist. Maybe this was possible.
All right, I said. The good news, I was told, was that there was a way to fix this. It's remarkably powerful, she said, and comes from neuro-linguistic programming.
Blink. I didn't know what that was, but it sounded impressive. She had a certification in it and everything.
The answer to all my problems was 'timeline therapy'. She had personally witnessed its amazing effects. Was I interested? I nodded. We arranged we would 'do' the timeline therapy the next week, and that I should bring with me a sheet of paper listing everything I disliked about myself.
So I went home. I didn't know what to do. The skeptic in me was yelling that this sounded hokey, and I should at least do some research. But what if it did turn out to be ridiculous? I didn't want to think any less of this woman who had helped me for the last six months. I asked Mum what she thought, and she Googled timeline therapy immediately. She read over it, and I saw her frown. She told me that it seemed ok until the last paragraph, which had started talking about past lives. Damn. I looked up neurolinguistic programming, and at the time the Skeptic's Dictionary entry described it as a psychological technique that hadn't been proven one way or another (at least, that's what I remember it saying).
Then I saw a way out. Timeline therapy seemed to involve hypnosis. Great! I knew that hypnosis is still fairly mysterious, but is definitely a valid scientific area. Maybe this technique could really work.
And this is how I, die-hard skeptic, fell for one of the more ridiculous types of pseudoscience / alternative medicine. It was presented by somebody I liked, and claimed to be able to solve all my problems. I simply convinced myself that there could be something to it by latching onto the smallest area of possibility, namely hypnosis, ignoring all other evidence.
The next week I arrived, complete with a detailed list of my failings as a person that had not been fun to compile. I sat down in her office. She was confident, excited. This was going to give me a fresh start, I was going to leave the building with a spring in my step and a smile on my face. Ok. I would be open-minded.
She produced various documents. It was important that I understood the basis of timeline therapy. There are, she said, three reasons it works so well. Firstly, there's the psychological reason. Ok. Then, there's the metaphysical reason. More alarm bells. The word 'metaphysics' is a red flag for nonsense. I remember trying to push this to one side. There was still the possibility that this could work. Then came the third reason: quantum physics. My heart sank. If 'metaphysics' is a red flag, bringing up quantum physics is an air-raid siren. Its inherent lack of common sense lends itself to use by those who would have you believe something untrue, and any use of the term outside of a book on science is a guarantee that something is amiss. I was told that the process involved a 'non-mirror reversal' and asked, as somebody who'd studied physics, whether I thought made sense? Aside from the fact that A-level physics certainly doesn't touch quantum stuff, I admitted that it didn't. I was told that just because I may not have understood it didn't mean it didn't work.
Moments later, she explained the process to me. It didn't involve any hypnosis, and that's when the last real vestige of hope left me. I tried to bring it back, but the whole thing was too much, too ridiculous.
It was very important that she read out from a script. The conversation, as I remember it, went roughly like this:
LC: Close your eyes, and relax.
ME: Ok.
LC: Everybody has a timeline, which runs through them. This timeline represents your future and your past. I want you to visualise your timeline, and tell me in which direction it is going.
ME: (saying whatever came into my head) It's going through me from front to back.
LC: Great. At some point in your life, there was an event that sparked off all of your troubles. You do not know where that is, but your subconscious does. We're going to locate it. Firstly, and I want you to give me the answer that your subconscious supplies, did this event happen before, during or after your birth?
We were now firmly entrenched in woo-woo land.
ME: After.
LC: Great. I'm talking directly to your subconscious, now. What age did this happen?
ME: ...
LC: Relax, and let the number come.
ME: ...
LC: I want you to give me the first answer that comes into your head, as that will be the correct one. What age did this event happen?
ME: (this number did, indeed, pop into my head, presumably because that's what happens when people tell you to think of a number) Five.
LC: Ok. Visualise yourself on your timeline.
ME: Ok.
LC: Float up and above your timeline, and move backwards along it, until you reach the age of five. Have you done that?
ME: (visualising it, and wanting to go home) Yes.
LC: Move to five minutes before the event. Feel the emotions.
ME: Ok.
LC: Move to five minutes after the event. Feel the emotions. Analyse them. Let them go.
ME: Ok.
LC: Move to the event itself. Release the emotions.
ME: Ok.
LC: Now, rise up into the air again, and come back to the present.
ME: Ok.
LC: Open your eyes.
Did I feel better, she asked. I said that I didn't, really. She asked whether we should go through it again. I was noncommital, so we went through the whole routine once more, but much faster. Again I was asked whether I felt better. I said that I couldn't really tell any difference. That was ok, she said, beneath the surface everything was much better, and I'd feel the effects eventually.
I tried to put up a pretense, but have never been any good at that. I was crushed, and it showed. We arranged to meet again the next week, and I left with neither spring nor smile.
That was a bad evening. I'd spent the morning writing down everything I hated about myself, and after realising that the whole thing was a con, I felt awful. My parents had paid, I kid you not, £40 a week for the life coaching, and I felt like I'd let them down. They'd spent all this money and I should have realised that it had been a waste of time.
If my life coach thought that timeline therapy was a reasonable thing to do, had everything else made any sense? The whole episode was swiftly undoing all of the good that had come before. In hindsight there had been advantages, even if they were just talking to somebody for an hour. It had helped. Confidence triggers really did work. But the whole timeline therapy thing was so far off the scale of reason that it threatened to invalidate it all.
I went back the next week, had a slightly awkward session, and she told me to see how it went from thereon, and contact her if necessary. I haven't seen her since.
I'm in two minds about this rather sudden end: it's entirely possible that she believed me fixed, and honestly thought I'd be fine. Or, it could be that I was clearly uninterested in her techniques, so she cut me off. I think it's probably the former, but unfortunately can't discount the latter.
I'm not claiming that life coaching as a whole is a con, and I don't want to say that my life coach was a fraud. That's clearly unfair. Much of the help she gave me was founded in psychology, and some of it was effective. My life coach gave every impression of caring deeply about helping me, and believing fully in what she was doing. It's just that she'd been seduced by NLP, which is a real shame.
The event has made me far more aware of how easy is it to be taken in. I wouldn't have expected that something so crazy could get in under my radar, but it did. Somebody I liked was telling me something I wanted to be true, and I actively worked against reason to convince myself that it could work.
I've since learnt that neurolinguistic programming is no more than a money-making scheme that has been roundly debunked in terms of both method and effectiveness. It remains a popular tool used by business, but is in reality just another con. Training costs thousands of pounds, and once you're a 'qualified' practitioner you can charge large amounts of money that people will happily pay. The Skeptic's Dictionary updated their entry, and their conclusion is:
It seems that NLP develops models which can't be verified, from which it develops techniques which may have nothing to do with either the models or the sources of the models. NLP makes claims about thinking and perception which do not seem to be supported by neuroscience. This is not to say that the techniques won't work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn't matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether it works. However, how do you measure the claim "NLP works"? I don't know and I don't think NLPers know, either. Anecdotes and testimonials seem to be the main measuring devices. Unfortunately, such a measurement may reveal only how well the trainers teach their clients to persuade others to enroll in more training sessions.
A little knowledge of the techniques of pseudoscience did at least alert me to the potential quackery, even if I then ignored those signs until they became overwhelming. I certainly learnt a great deal, and am now more sympathetic to people taken in by alternative medicines.
If I ever need help again, I'll talk to somebody scientific. Whatever a doctor would recommend.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
June 2nd, 2006 - 17:00
Surprise you stuck for so long! What were you looking for when you sought this help? For information, a good life coach will have you evaluate after a course of 6 sessions perhaps. Whatever future therapy you’re receiving, please give yourself a time limit and evaluate if the sessions are productive and concrete i.e. you’ve got answers to your seeking. From your blog, all you need is a good friend to listen to…your mum sounds a good choice (pardon if I’m wrong). Andrew, the world is at your feet. Have the dare to explore. Do not be afraid to fail. Remember failure is the pillar of success…but you must work hard…be persistent and be resilient…listen to your own heart. I wish you success in forthcoming days.
June 2nd, 2006 - 23:42
Sometimes I just want to come over there and give you a big hug.
June 4th, 2006 - 22:38
Hi U
I am a life coach and really upset about your experience. I agree with Lee and Lauren. I hope that this will not put you off self development which is really what life coaching is about. I am a non direct life coach, which means you are the one in change of the time and the subjects not me. My work is to encourage you to move forward and not to look at what has happened. If a life coach can not achieve that in max 6 x45 min sessions then its time to look for another life coach. Have fun with your life and I can confirm, you do have the answer my friend, it just needs the right person to bring it out.
June 9th, 2006 - 03:02
This “timeline” stuff sounds like Dianetics with a paint job, what with the file clerk and the time track and the past lives and all that stuff. It made L.Ron Hubbard a very rich man, and if NLP has ripped this off and rebranded it, it’s not too surprising.
June 10th, 2006 - 21:29
I’ve come to this late but followed a link from Dr. Charles to this post.
I want to say that if anyone needs ANY type of counselling, they visit a Psychologist and NOT a life coach. A life coach, unless they have a psych degree, is a con artist. They are not trained or educated fully on psychological processes. They use psych techniques they’ve read about or experienced, without knowing the ramifications of providing a partial treatment. Because that’s what life coaching is – a mishmash of info, theory and techniques pulled from a combination of legitimate and illegitimate sources.
Don’t put your life in the hands of a quack. But if you ever need guidance again, find a good psychologist.
June 14th, 2006 - 18:23
Who’s to say that psychology isn’t steeped in almost as much pseudoscience? (I’d say that it probably is)
How do you define a “good” psychologist, by the way?
June 14th, 2006 - 18:29
Um, scientists?
June 14th, 2006 - 19:05
Cute, Andrew, but not really an answer. What scientists? Where? Using what evaluative criteria, and what data?
I’ll give you that cognitive psychology may have a shot, but that distinction was not made in Carrie’s comment, and “psychology” thus includes all sorts of wacky schools of thought, such as Freudian, geshtalt, etc.
When “therapy” consists of revealing your innermost thoughts to someone else for $50 a pop, once a week, for years on end, how can one say that its “effectiveness” is attributable to the fact that you’re talking to a “trained professional”?
Is it more effective, say, than just getting stuff off your chest with a friend over a beer after work every day?
Where are the scientists, Andrew, since you’re being so helpful, who’ve answered this question one way or the other?
June 14th, 2006 - 19:38
Fair enough – I see what you mean. Apologies for being snippy – I quickly typed it while cooking, expecting that you were another anti-psychology nut who turn up occasionally on my scientology posts
I should have checked out your site first.
I expect that Carrie was using ‘psychologist’ in the modern sense of somebody with the scientific method backing them up, and it’s certainly how I’d use the term. You’re right that if the definition included Freudian etc. theories then there would be no reason to expect it to be any more helpful than life coaching.
I don’t know whether ‘therapy’ has any kind of scientific basis. I’d be interested to see studies into that. You’re right that cognitive behaviour therapy does seem to have something going for it in terms of evidence that it works, and that seems to be the discipline to go for.
June 14th, 2006 - 19:52
Good post, by the way.
I found NLP interesting because it seemed to have at least a couple things in common with what I knew about cognitive therapies (which basically consists in what I learned in my psych 101 class, plus reading Martin Seligman’s “Learned Optimism”).
I, a bit like you, I suppose, was very disappointed to learn that NLP is just a bunch of bald assertions with no real data behind them.
June 15th, 2006 - 02:23
I was referring to proven, successful psychology techniques. Cognitive particularly but there is more than that. I also think if anyone questions the value of psychology, they look into research of how PTSD (for example) affects the brain. In any case, NLP is not something I would recommend either. It’s manipulation and all sorts of other garbage. Not at all safe.
June 15th, 2006 - 02:43
Carrie, in a non-trivial sense, isn’t all of psychology about manipulation? Isn’t that its very intent, after all? Of course the connotation of the word “manipulation” includes concepts like coercion and deception but it need not. Doesn’t the psychologist want to manipulate a “defective” mind back to “health”?
Your comments raise a number of questions in my mind. You seem to believe that NLP can actually have effects on a person’s psyche. Are these effects necessarily bad effects? If so, why? If not, why then disparage NLP wholesale? If it contains worthwhile techniques (that are unique to it and not simply borrowed from other techniques) then why not put them to use?
How does one determine the comparative safety of a given technique?
How does one determine the comparative effectiveness of a given technique? How does one even measure such a thing reliably? What is your criterion for success?
I realize my questions go way beyond a reasonable scope for this comment thread, but then again, these issues bear directly on the topic. Maybe all the BS Andrew describes works–in spite of being based on erroneous theory–if only you’ll believe with all your heart! In the absense of data either way, who am I to say?
June 15th, 2006 - 03:37
Einzige, you don’t have to take my word for it. As for responding to all your questions, seems this is more about disproving what I said by engaging in analysis well beyond the scope of this post. I’m not interested in the debate. I’m comfortable knowing what I know.
I’m out.
June 15th, 2006 - 03:55
Did I come off as if I wanted a “debate”? I’d sincerely like answers to my questions, and you seem to know them, so I’m asking! Maybe you could point us to some online resources?
I apologize for seeming confrontational. I certainly wasn’t advocating for a particular position (although it seems I didn’t make it clear earlier that I’m skeptical that NLP [and much of the traditional techniques of psychotherapy along with it] does anything, good or bad, other than what talking things out would do. I’m not close-minded about this, though!).
Oh well, there is a distinct downside to the narrow bandwidth that blog comment threads afford our communications!
June 15th, 2006 - 04:44
My knowledge about this stuff comes from such a circuitous route of con artists and legit professionals, it would take a blog post of it’s own to explain. And it’s not the sort of thing I share because inevitably, someone will attack me on credibility or any myriad number of things. It’s personal experience and a ton – almost literally – of reading and research to figure out what is good, what’s substituting for legit, what isn’t safe for people and what is, etc. Years of stuff.
As for the PTSD/brain stuff, I can’t think of the man’s name but he’s the doctor who first diagnosed PTSD in vietnam vets. Prior to vietnam, their trauma was referred to as shell shock. This doctor (an American…wish I could think of his name) studied the vietnam vets, diagnosed their shell shock and built a therapy for it – which works. The way the brain works is astounding to put it simply. I think if more people knew about the effects of stress on the brain, and cognitive therapies, a lot of us could avoid health and life problems down the road. There’s also something called EMDR which works extremely well. As for proof, high resonance MRIs do prove the changes in the brain as a result of stress. But those machines are few and far between and hard to get to for the average person. But it has been fully tested and proven by the medical community.
As you said, therapy can also be questionable but it comes down to finding someone who has a set plan for the individual, a schedule (to avoid 10 years of treatment that’s unnecessary), and most important – medical training and qualification. The brain is nothing to mess with. That’s why I get so irritated by life coaches. They are not nearly equipped as well as they should be (unless they are doctors too) and it can create adverse consequences for people. I just find that very irresponsible. I’ve known a few too and I literally worry about the people they “counsel”.
Hope this helped. And I do apologize if I seemed confrontational too. Just trying to avoid arguments online
June 15th, 2006 - 04:56
I have learned, when my blood pressure starts rising as I’m typing a comment (on a blog, on Usenet, on email, or whatever the discussion flavor of the moment is…), that it’s probably time to start making friends and clearing the air!
I think it’s only after all the participants know that the goal of the discussion is not to see if you can beat everyone else down that a real search for truth can begin.
I hope that doesn’t sound too pretentious!
June 15th, 2006 - 05:13
I don’t think it sounds pretentious. I do think you have much more patience than I do LOL
June 29th, 2006 - 06:16
Hi all
You\’ve inspired me to action
There are so many misconceptions spread by NLP and NLP salespitchers. It really is a kind of new age religion now, just look at the presuppositions.
I wanted to look up some of the facts on NLP and found a superior source on wikipedia. I checked out the facts and they are utterly solid. But recently the guys posting these facts (against a lot of resistence from NLPbrains) were booted for sockpuppetry or some such charge. Sockpuppets or not, their facts are brilliant. This is what they produced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=56954129
and this is what the NLPers have done after the scientists were banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
(they removed the central criticisms from the opening and are reversing the criticisms)
and here is what they are planning to write:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/NLP_new
Basically its a big NLP reframe for promotional purposes.
Anyway, I\’m going to do my best to maintain the original facts (because as far as I have read from the literature, they are exact and perfect). The science results are extremely solid.
Its bad enough that NLP is damaging reputations, but spreading mind myths and raising feelings of insecurity whilst creating cults is seriously bad news. If they are dictating what goes into encyclopedias, it is also a huge disservice.
Anyway, if anyone wants to pitch in, (just to agree with the facts presented) I\’m sure some good will come of this and even wikipedia will benefit.
Cheers
Chris Fairweather
July 20th, 2006 - 21:37
I have worked as a counsellor for the last ten years and have a mental halth background.I am also a trained life coach and have been following this blog with interest.In all fields, we come across people who are admirable in their profession and those who bring it into disrepute.I have a few comments I would like to make.
The criteria for accepting clients for counselling and for life coaching is very different.
If you go to buy any type of product whether that is a product or a service, it makes good sense to shop around. Know about the supplier, check the persons credentials and if you can get feedback from someone else, do.
Be aware of what it is you want to achieve, what you are willing to spend, what will tell you that your needs are or are not being met.
Give the “Therapist” feedback as this will also help clarify issues for yourself regarding their techniques/ practise.This is acollaborative endeavour.
Take more personal responsibility for making the changes in your life if it is the process of lifecoaching that you embark upon. A coach is there to help you generate solutions for yourself. After the talking, drawing up of goals and strategies, it is really up to you to take action.Nothing else will improve your quality of life.
July 21st, 2006 - 10:59
Hi Mary
I agree, shopping around is very important. But good knowledge of the field is also very important. There are good studies now that point out most unvalidated methods and raise the important issues. Basically it is unethical in psychotherapy, education, and related areas to use unvalidated methods. It is indefensible because there are perfectly good validated ways of doing things (backed up by controlled studies).
Here is a great site that raises awareness of the research-practitioner gap. It is quite an eye opener, but also points out some fairly obvious dubious snakeoil (eg Rebirthing, etc). http://www.srmhp.org/0101/raison-detre.html
A huge amount of time, money, and care goes into making rigorous research designs to actively falsify every therapy. The ones that survive the testing are valid. The one’s that fall are bunk. A lot of them nowadays are not even tested as reviewers and researchers will not see any reason to test pseudoscientific theories. A lot (eg NLP) have fallen by the wayside but have been re-packaged in various forms (eg TIR (Traumatic incident reduction) and NLP have been found to be simple re-packaged versions of Dianetics (scientology).
So the research-practitioner gap is pretty wide now. Charlatans are getting better at conning public bodies, and postmodern (new age) ideas are very comforting but grossly misleading in real terms. But with higher levels of education, and bodies such as SRMHP raising awareness of dubious therapies and the issues involved, that gap may reduce in time.
ATB
Chris
November 8th, 2006 - 18:46
Hi Andrew,
What a shambles! There are a lot of well meaning people out there who are persuaded by others into parting with a great deal of money for hokey training.
It takes just two weekends to become a Master Practitioner in NLP! and about £5000. It takes about a decade to get mastery in anything else. I have worked in the field of therapy, counselling and coaching for 10 years and still wouldn’t call myself a master.
Seems to me, from reading your blog, there’s nothing much wrong with you, you just need to focus on being a great writer.
Very best of wishes with your dream.
February 23rd, 2007 - 05:40
This thread is interesting. I had a good scout of the Wikipedia NLP site and it shows some pretty wierd culty stuff going on. Firstly it seems to be run by NLP practitioners. There’s an NLP company going by the name of Comaze.com (Comaze) run by a certified NLP trainer from Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Comaze
http://www.comaze.com/biography.html
http://www.nlptrb.org/nlp/trainers/directory/
who also works with a company called inspirative http://www.comaze.com/links.html
endorsed by John Grinder
http://www.inspiritive.com.au/
Comaze seems to be working hand in glove with another NLP trainer called Greg Alexander (username: GregA). The leader seems to be a user called FT2, who upon close examination seems to be promoting zoophilia (bestiality) on Wikipedia also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FT2
They seem to be showing the sort of censorship attempts that are common on the Scientology Wikipedia site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Professional accountability seems to have gone completely under the radar with NLP. I think its too much of a commercial pusher to be just down to “true believers” promoting their cult. I think the activities of Comaze.com and collaborators shows pretty much how unethical NLP companies can be to promote their interests.
Halliburton
March 6th, 2007 - 16:28
I would make the following commments about timeline therapy and NLP.
1 NLP has been in existence for 30 years. Many respected therapists and hypnotherapists have trained in NLP. I am not aware of any who are critical, and many use it some of its techniques. The co-creators of, NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, created NLP from watching leadin therapists, such as Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls.To my knowledge, all of these worled closely with Bandler and Grinder, and were favourably dispossed to them.
2 There is not much in the way of quality control in NLP and there have been many feuds between different factions, often related to marketing. Timeline therapy is one offshoot of NLP, which has been promoted by Tad James.
3 The central claim of NLP is that it is possible to make rapid therapeutic changes-curing phobias in a few minutes. This seems to annoy other types of therapists, who instead say that many sessions are required.
4 My own experience of NLP is that highly skilled experts can indeed do this-I have seen this done in front of large audiences many times.
5 I would also add,that many techniques require a fair degree of skill from the therapist/practitioner (or life coach). This is not so much in using any given technique but in watching the subject closely and making sure that you have done the job. If the subject is uncomfortable, reluctant or feels that the process isn’t working, he/she should know.
6 It sounds to me like your coach didn’t have the skill to notice that you weren’t getting it and do a proper job.
7 If you want to find out about NLP for yourself, I would watch a DVD of someone like RIchard Bandler or Paul McKenna working with a demonstration subject. When you see someone’s problem disappear in a few minutes, it is hard to be sceptical.
8 You might also care to research Ericksonian hypnosis, one of the majjor influences on NLP.
March 6th, 2007 - 21:40
Sure, but that all seems to be anecdotal / an appeal to authority, and doesn’t really answer the criticisms from the Skepdic’s Dictionary and elsewhere…
March 15th, 2007 - 14:23
I think you had back luck and should not judge all coaching the same.
I went to see Anthony Robbins last year and he was amazing, so much so that it changed my life. I believe Coaching and NLP to be a very strong tool to improve your life. Sounds like you just had a bad experience that has made you think the way you do but take it from me its good stuff.
Please think about seeing someone else to help yuo on the right path or if you are willing to transform your life fully go see Anthony Robbins when he is in the UK this June, you will never look back.
All the best
Kaz
April 20th, 2007 - 10:37
Hi all. The battery of controlled studies into NLP in the 80s showed that it is ineffective, especially for influence purposes. There is still serious research into NLP, but nowadays its conducted by social psychologists and cultic studies researchers. Their view is that NLP is an archetypal pseudoscience that spreads misconceptions about the brain. The kindest view is that NLP is a new alternative religion or cult. Perhaps a more realistic view is that the Scientology scam makes people big bucks, so NLP and similar have followed suit. Unlimited potential, the map is not reality, you create your own reality – they all help you suspend critical thought and allow the pseudoscience to flourish. What keeps it working is confirmation bias (proponents filtering out disconfirming evidence and hyping assumed successes), and cognitive dissonance (because you paid for the book/seminar, you have to justify it), and a collection of other non specific effects. Psychologists and some human resource researchers are pretty worried about the likes of NLP. It spreads misconceptions about the nature of learning, the brain, and behaviour in general. Workers are also rebelling against being “tranformed” at work. It is becoming clearer to the public now that NLP is basically rehashed scientology, with all its timeline – inner demons. The cult of NLP will most likely continue. But more obviously as a cult. Doc Green
August 5th, 2007 - 01:37
Here is a blog on a full on scammer.
http://www.blogtext.org/aurorab/article/13121.html
February 1st, 2008 - 00:02
Itseems that nlp is quackery
Perhaps a warm bath for lost souls, you see when we had to work the land we did not have the time to indulge in the luxury of crisis. It is only since we have become fat and bloated that we indulge in ourselves
It cannot be overlooked that it is only recently all these therapies have come about. As nike says ‘just do it’. If yoi don’t think about it it can’t bother you.
Take a pill if your that bothered certainly don’t entrust your life to someone who became a ‘master’ for a thousand quid in a hall with loads of other converts.
Nlp pah, surely no one can be that dumb…
Everyday in everyway I’m getting stronger and stronger…repeat after me
December 25th, 2008 - 02:34
I really like this post. I must do, I’m reading it on Christmas morning.
I got here via a search on life coaching as I’m considering it as an alternate career.
I have to say, it sounds like you entered the whole thing with *such* a skeptical mind that it was actually doomed from the start. Reminds me of the the type of person who turns up at the hypnotists thinking ‘do what you want, I’m NOT going under’.
To actually claim you were seduced by nonsense is a little infair as you admit that the earlier part of the course had
positive benefits. Like any course, there will be parts that work for you and parts that don’t. If you came away from the whole thing thinking ‘I got absolutely nothing from these sessions’ then yes it may all be nonsense but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Your post reads as if that the ‘coach’ was leading you into sort of NLP trap, purely for her own evil ends!. I’m not sure why I am thinking of the conclusion to ‘the wicker man’ here
anyway, hope things are better now. shall look out for your other posts. Happy Christmas!
December 25th, 2008 - 12:07
@CP Tosh. The issue isn’t that some of it was beneficial and some of it wasn’t, it’s that life coaching has no evidential grounding. And so can’t be trusted. Yep, some of the talking-to-people stuff helped, but then she tried to fix my problems by casting a magic spell.
‘You’re just closed minded’ is a common refrain when trying to defend things that don’t work. It’s an easy way to dismiss negative results – ‘it was doomed from the start’, etc.. I wasn’t at all closed-minded at the time, and actually let a lot of things go, but the timeline therapy was way off the deep end.
It’s a bizarre reading to say I think she was conning me. I don’t think that at all. I expect she’s a true believer. But that doesn’t make it valid, or trustworthy, scientific or beneficial.
December 30th, 2008 - 10:39
Leave it to Anthony Robbins
March 27th, 2009 - 18:33
What a fascinating thread…..
I am sorry to hear your problem and some of the comments made in this thread appear to be written with a ‘little’ amount of knowledge which can be a dangerous thing…… that said everyone is entitled tot heir opinion, so fair enough.
I am a Master Practitioner of NLP, Time Line Therapy(TM) and Hypnotherapy …. and can assure you it took far longer than 2 weekends to train in Stella – and I too would wonder about whoever is offering such a training in such a brief time.
I am not sure who trained the original life coach in this thread, but if the wording used, is actually as stated, then I am not surprised that (a) it didn’t work and (b) it put you off. Sometimes it seems people can be too enthusiastic about their subject and over-egg the pudding in explanation!
It may be they were not trained in the ‘formal’ Time Line Therapy methodology as per Tad James – since the concept of the Time Line has been around much longer and some hypnotherapists use the concept in a differently structured way. This does not necessarily mean it won’t work as I am sure there are many ways to obtain results in any sort of therapy – only that the method described in the original comment is not as I have come to know it.
Time Line Therapy is a hypnotic technique, yes …. and it does not require a formal/lengthy hypnotic induction to work. When it is done correctly the subject/client KNOWS it has worked at the time and the Practitioner can see the shift in their physiology also – although it is ultimately confirmed by the client that the relevant emotion/limiting decision has been ‘let go’.
A highly important part of the process is confirming with the client that it’s totally OK with their unconscious mind for them to release the emotion etc and if it’s not, you can’t continue until this point has been reached. From what you have said, it appears this point was not confirmed. Again, why I am unsurprised by it not working for you.
Also – within this discussion I want to make a clarification between Coaching and Therapy.
Coaching SHOULD be done from a perspective of the client having a general mindset of …. I’m generally OK, and I want to further improve myself in X, Y, Z and be helped with methodology to do so.
Therapy is done as a ‘remedial’ methodolgy – with the client starting off from a point of …. I’m NOT OK because of X, Y, Z …. and I want to get rid of the negatives and feel better about myself.
Various NLP methods can be very useful in helping achieve both.
Time Line Therapy does work. I know this through personal experience in using it with clients AND through having it used on me – to help recover from the mental state I was in after a motorbike accident, combined with having to deal with losing some of the use of my right arm – and having PTSD from that whole experience.
I saw a fully qualified/practicing Psychologist [whom I knew because he had done the NLP/Time Line training with me] …. and he has added it to his methods with very successful results. Effectively having additional ‘tools in his box’ to deal with peoples problems.
I have had plenty of discussion with my family on the science/quack debate – since many of them are Doctors and only believe in ‘science’.
Science allows the ‘proof’ of theory by testing it in various ways and once it has met the relevant criteria it is ‘proven’ as scientific fact.
* With this in mind – I pose the question – what was true of the theory before the testing was done? It was still true before-hand, just not had the time and effort put in to ‘proving’ it. So just because no-one has scientifically proven NLP (or this can be said for anything else, for that matter) does not mean it doesn’t work, or isn’t true necessarily – just that it has not been tested in whatever way, by a scientist.
There are plenty of people who go to psychologists etc for MANY sessions/months/years and get very little from it. Does this prove it to be quackery?
If so – why do Doctors refer people to see them?
We could argue that a qualified mental health practitioner of any ‘title’ that has a patient/client without results is simply a quack?
OR – we could understand that there is a lot more to it than the science of X infection can be cleared up with Y medicine – as per traditional medical science.
The mind is a very complex thing and there are many ways to achieve results and help people change. NLP and related subjects, such as Time Line Therapy(TM) and Hypnotherapy are several ways of this being done and they work for many. Psychology/Psychiatry are other ways. Others turn to their God of whichever religion they believe in, to help heal their mental ranglings/troubles.
Hypnotherapy, for example, was laughed at in history at various times….. It was used for pain relief, until it was ‘out-moded’ by chloroform. Today it has made a come back with greater acceptance as people understand it more and become better at applying the techniques. Such that it is now possible to have full-on operations under a hypnotic-anaesthetic, rather than chemical one. It can be very useful for those who react poorly to the chemical method and can also help improve recovery and/or have fewer side effects. Some hospitals (particularly in Europe) use this as a matter of course. I saw a TV show here in the UK with a guy having his Hernia repaired with hypnotic anaesthetic only, with no pain during the procedure. Likewise, some dentists offer this form of pain relief for having teeth out etc.
So I close on the point – I was sorry to hear of your bad ending experience and hope that if you have removed that method from your list of possibilities – you have found an alternative one that works for you….!
Cheers
Nig
March 27th, 2009 - 19:49
Another thought actually ….
IMAGINE you had never seen a motor car before, but someone told you they are great and get you to your destination quickly and in comfort. You’ve only ever travelled by your beaten-up bike before and don’t get these ‘car’ things, but decide to give it a go, because London is 200 miles away and you REALLY want to get to a party there….
On the way, your driver gets lost and then the gearbox broke a few miles from your destination. You eventually manage to get a lift home, but miss the party and are really unhappy with your friend who suggested this crazy car thing – everyone knows bikes are more reliable … I mean …. at least they work and you don’t get rained on while you have to wait for a lift home.
You have a choice to make at that point ……. always ride your bike and never get in a stupid car again, or because there is another party next weekend, decide to trust someone and take a different car …… since last week, a guy who works in the car factory told you how good cars really are – and how much better they are, than missing all the good parties, or having to walk!!
You’ve had ONE bad experience with something you don’t fully understand. There may be other ways to get the same outcome, that you choose to try …… and that doesn’t mean the first way doesn’t work, just that they were a poor driver perhaps.
If the first light you ever switched on blew a bulb and left you in the dark, you could choose to use candles and never try electricity again – or because proper light is important to you, give it another go – being sure the wiring is checked for safety and a new bulb put in…..
The main difference here – is that your feelings around this experience and what it meant to you, are clearly more important than the examples above. Yes it is far more emotive in reality than those depict! …. and the principal is much the same.
April 16th, 2009 - 14:55
Nigel H, you’re clearly a salesman.
And as such, your theory is flawed: you cannot compare the car and the bike to the therapy. Because both the car and the bike can get us to London (that’s scientifically proven to be true most of the time, and EVERYONE knows that), whereas for NLP that certainly ain’t the case. The the-rapist probably even thinks it worked magic because she tried one NLP trick and her client never came back.
Point is, when you feel good there’s a lot more you can do with your life. So to feel good, some people practice NLP; others have sex.
The ones who it doesn’t work for, you wrote, it’s because they “don’t fully understand”. I say the NLP ain’t the magic thing you claim it to be, or it would have worked right away. Ofcourse we could try another NLP consultant, then another and finally go see Bandler himself because if someone knows it must be him. And that, my friend, is how Bandler makes money. And IT WORKS! (for HIS wallet).
April 17th, 2009 - 13:24
Bichard (says it all… clearly using such a tag as your name, there is no pretense to having a balanced view on the subject)
Sorry – maybe you misunderstood my intent, in that I am not a salesman – nothing to sell/gain personally here – I was simply adding some knowledge to this thread by someone with actual experience in both sides of this argument/discussion.
If your argument were to hold up …. that whilst cars etc are proven to get you form a-b and NLP isn’t proven to work, then you MUST also add that Psychology doesn’t work etc etc – because there are many people who have an experience of that being true for them. Are you suggesting that to be the case?
As I said, the mind is a very complex thing and not everyone will gain a result with whatever type of therapy they go to, because it depends on so many differing variables – from their state of mind (secondary gain), to input from well-meaning friends & family, to the skill of the therapist (in which-ever discipline, whether a main-stream ‘accepted’ psycho-therapy, or otherwise.)
Simple fact of the matter is that Psychology etc works for some/many and so does NLP/Hypnotherapy, or whatever ……. and yes … so might sex make you feel good for a while – as per your example.
Perhaps re-read my actual comment though – as below for clarity for you:-
==> “You’ve had ONE bad experience with something you don’t fully understand.”
I do not say that it did not work BECAUSE they didn’t understand it – rather that (a) It didn’t work for them and (b) they didn’t fully understand it … 2 exclusive events – not related.
I also didn’t claim NLP to be magic – as you put it. I just happen to know more about it than many, in knowing that it can work very well AND that there are certain criteria that need to be present in order for ANY type of mental therapy to work on any patient/client.
There is no such thing as a magic ‘cure’ for mental problems, as evidenced by the fact that so many people are walking around with problems. Does that mean that none of the methods out there can be evidenced to work for many people, in various ways? Of course not.
I am somewhat confused by your comment though – as there is a contradiction, I feel…
you wrote:-
“Point is, when you feel good there’s a lot more you can do with your life. So to feel good, some people practice NLP; others have sex.”
I agree with the first part about feeling good and being able to do more with your life – fine….
……Yet you clearly have an issue with NLP working (or not) so I do not understand how you can make the comment “So to feel good, some people practice NLP;” which you APPEAR to believe could not happen, since you are saying it doesn’t work???
I am interested to know how you came to have your negative experience/view on the subject?!!?
Cheers for now
Nig
October 18th, 2009 - 00:28
As a life coach, I have left behind the jargon and currently use peer-reviewed journal research, formal education and practices from established fields to do my work.
“NLP” is fundamentally junk. It conflates already established knowledge from rigorous fields and magical thinking. To grab terms such as “neuro-”, and steal principles from cognitive neuroscience and cognitive/behavioral psychology, strip them of their scientific rigor and repackage them as another phenomenon is simply dishonest. Maybe the habit is fit for the times…economics over education. The cause of helping people should come not just with good intention, but solid reason. Let’s not practice or administer circular reasoning and sleight of hand as a fix.
(further, let’s not steal and sell behavioral-cognitive therapy under the name NLP)
I think the economic crisis and flailing attempt to conduct “anti-terror” wars are perfect examples of prolonging the problem by falling in love with an inappropriate model. Providing services more consistent with reality not only gives credibility to the job, but ensures clients get appropriate and responsible answers. We’re definitely up for this kind of challenge.
Lena
January 8th, 2010 - 20:39
“The cause of helping people should come not just with good intention, but solid reason.”
Lena, This is exactly my opinion and what my intention was in becoming a coach. However now that I am in the field I can’t find coaches with the same mindset. I feel that there is a place where CBT with a good psychologist ends and a coach can come in. I just can’t find it without running into all the jargon and repackaged science you noted. Would love to connect with you about the peer-reviewed journal research you found.
January 6th, 2010 - 17:18
Fascinating post and excellent comments. The arguments obtain to all areas of medicine and ‘alternative’ medicine. I tend to think the most important question of all these therapies is “does it work”, not “have they got the theory right”. Many medical procedures have been found NOT to work, even though the theory was plausible.
The problem with psychological therapies is that many of the outcomes they seek to achieve are soft and difficult to measure. Nevertheless, I would have to agree that the best measure of a therapy’s veracity are these types of outcome measures.
Ask first, “does it work” and ask second “how does it work”.
January 26th, 2010 - 05:32
One big difference between NLP and Scientology is that there’s no central NLP organization that will sue you if you say nasty stuff about it.
There is also no one meaning of the term, “NLP.” It’s not trademarked, it’s a generic term, so any bozo can claim to practice it. Some of them may have certifications from reputable certifiers, others may be certified by other bozos, or not at all.
As for the life-coach experience described here, it sounds as if the life-coach didn’t absorb from your previous interactions that metaphysics and certain interpretations of quantum physics were not part of your model of reality. Still, if someone describes having seen a “big silver bird” up in the sky the other day, you may decide that their understanding of technology is questionable, but you probably won’t rule out that they saw an actual, not a hallucinated, airplane. Time Line Therapy either works or doesn’t, irrespective of quantum physics. It’s an experiential thing. It sounds as if in this case, it didn’t work for you, but it does work for some (if not all) people, when done correctly.
As a consumer of medical and other therapeutic and educational services, theory is interesting to me, but results trump theory.
January 26th, 2010 - 17:57
Fingal – I don’t understand how this is at all like not knowing what an aeroplane is.
Can you back up ‘it does work for some’ with anything but anecdote? If not, that’s at best a hypothesis. If the timeline therapy spell worked better than words-that-aren’t-spells, it’d revolutionise psychology. As far as I can tell, that hasn’t happened…
February 4th, 2010 - 06:16
It’s the difference between theory and experience. It’s possible to encounter a real airplane even if your model of reality doesn’t account for such things. You’ll just describe it strangely. You reject an explanation that involved quantum physics; I would point out that a wrong explanation does not disprove the existence of the phenomenon that is wrongly explained. In this particular case, I think the person may not have understood the quantum-physics explanation very well, and might have done better to omit it.
When you say, “anything but anecdote,” if you mean are there academic studies, I have no idea. I’ve seen it work firsthand, by which I mean a complaint disappeared, and while infinite time has not elapsed, the complaint has not recurred. In at least one case, a symptom which might be a modified form of the original complaint did show up, and further work was done, the details and results of which I don’t know about. As a specific example, I was at a bar with a number of people, one of whom began to have a headache, and was going to leave. I guided him to just before the headache, then before I could do much more, he started laughing and said the headache was gone. I don’t think he was lying either before or after. I haven’t been able to follow up on what happened the rest of the night though. Even alleviating a headache for half an hour would be pretty significant if it were *my* headache.
When you say, “spell,” I’m not sure what you mean. To me, “spell” would mean an invocation of invisible “supernatural” entities, or elemental forces, separate from the human participants in whatever the process is. TLT is not at all like that, it’s more like a way of getting better co-operation within your own mind. The conscious, rational mind is great at some things, but isn’t always very good at recognizing when it would be better to sit down and stay out of the way of other parts of the mind.
As for revolutionizing psychology, the history of NLP includes some regrettable turf-wars with academic psychologists. Until those are settled, NLP can deliver results to those who seek out the right practitioners, but seems unlikely to be blessed by the guild. So the revolution will have to wait.
February 4th, 2010 - 08:38
What you’re saying is: if something is real, the theory is irrelevant. Which is true, but you still have to show the something is real.
Which is problematic, because there are two problems here. Firstly, there’s no prior plausibility. Fixing psychological problems with pre-determined words sounds exactly like the placebo effect (or if that’s not an option, a magic spell). Quantum physics explanations have been used by every cure-of-the-gaps alternative-medicine practitioner of the last 50 years, and have no credibility amongst quantum physicists. So, because the plausibility for extra-placebo effects is so out of kilter with known psychology, you have to provide compelling evidence.
Which is the second problem, because there are no controls. It’s all very well claiming to have cured people’s headaches, but without a control group you’ve no way of knowing if that’s really true. There are just too many variables. You may be personally convinced, but to convince anyone else you need to provide something compelling. Anecdotes are only the start: they’re enough for a hypothesis, but that’s it.
I have trouble believing that the whole world of medicine is ignoring something to effective. I think their skepticism may be more to do with a lack of compelling evidence.
February 4th, 2010 - 13:59
Certain kinds of assertions, by their nature, would have validity only if based on controlled, randomized, double-blind experimentation. E.g., knowing nothing about an individual except diagnostic determinations A, B, and C, procedure D will cure/ameliorate the presenting condition with likelihood E. Some people require a statement of that form before they feel confident enough to take an action.
Of course, in life, we do commit nontrivial resources to a course of action in the absence of this kind of information. Most business deals would never happen if investors required randomized, controlled, double-blind research into all possible outcomes before opening their wallets.
Coaching in the athletic context is not double-blinded, and the athlete him/herself has to follow what the coach says, or may decide the coach lacks credibility and go elsewhere.
(As for quantum physics, I share at least some of your skepticism, since Richard Feynman said nobody “understands” it, and it was in his area of expertise. Explaining anything in terms of concepts that are themselves not well-understood seems less than productive to me. Some of those quantum-physics explanations may be valid, but I find that they positively invite scrutiny.)
At the same time, a lack of compelling evidence for something does not prove that that something is not the case, the lack might also be due to an absence of extensive, properly-designed experimentation. Which might happen because those in a position to allocate resources to such experimentation are for one reason or another disinclined to do so. Some such reasons would be valid, others not.
The spirit of Science requires the objective, unbiased evaluation of all assertions, and in the Platonic realm, that is how it is conducted (or so I imagine). In the world I actually experience, science is conducted by flawed humans whose organizational, material, and political interests also play a role in what experiments actually wind up getting run.
The scientific method may yield truth (when properly practiced), but undeniably requires significant resources that a lot of us don’t have. And when something is as easy to verify first-hand as the usefulness of NLP techniques (properly practiced), then as a practical matter, I believe one may reasonably choose not to wait for the fine-grinding, but slow, gears of Science to deliver their results.
In fact, I believe positive results were in fact obtained in the case at the top of the thread, at least initially. Then the practitioner misread the situation, set off alarm bells, and created some counter-productive skepticism, and the client got off the bus. Bummer.
February 4th, 2010 - 14:01
(“in fact” used redundantly, apologies.)
June 2nd, 2010 - 13:46
I have recently had the worst experience with so-called “life coaching”, which in fact is different from my previous experiences with it.
I approached a company called Leadership Revolution to help me progress goals that I had established with a previous coach.
The guy’s testimonials were excellent but let me tell you he was a fraud. He took my money up front and when I expressed my dissatisfaction, basically he told me to change my attitude. I asked for a refund as per his coaching contract. He told me I would not be getting a refund. And he would coach me only on his terms….which would be OK if I were benefitting at all. But his idea of coaching was checking my font size on my spreadsheet, changing colours of cells in XL and telling me which colour pens to use on post-its! AAAAAAAAAARGH! There was I expecting at least minimal guidance on life, love, career and values and this man spent our sessions telling me to write bigger otherwise he would not be able to read the post-its from the other side of the room.
If you come across him, avoid him like the Bubonic Plague! James Holden is his name. Leadership Schmeadership!!!
July 12th, 2010 - 00:30
“Coaching” is a currently fashionable term for an ancient practice: teaching. There is a lot of debate about how to raise test scores for populations of children. At the same time, I learned, for example, how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide; how to shoot a lay up by focusing on a spot on the backboard; and how to drive a car from teachers.
Teachers do counsel, and they occasionally veer into the territory of “psychology.” The final measure of the efficacy of “teaching” is whether LEARNING takes place. In most adult contexts, this means learning how to do rather than learning facts or information as facts or information.
I’m not a touchy-feely person myself. So, I don’t put too much stock on giving or receiving “accountability,” “motivation,” or “release from stuckness.” I do believe that there are times when adults need to learn things, when they benefit from having others teach or tutor them to achieve that learning, and that the process need not be so formal or “scientific” as psychotherapy is.
Truth is, you cannot market THAT service these days without calling it “coaching.”
August 19th, 2010 - 18:35
A 26-year-old girl calling herself a life coach mildly insulted me today. After looking at the services she claimed to offer, my instinct told me something was amidst so I Googled “life coach scam” and landed at your page.
Psychiatry in some countries and cultures has a negative connotation, so “life coach” spins paid cheerleader and counselor into something more positive, marketable and digestible. The thing is, most people seek out this type of assistance when vulnerable, and whomever one chooses then has the power to prop you up. Thus, you (in the general sense) think it works because it often does no matter the method or title.
Most practitioners I seek out are ones that licensed in the traditional sense and may offer unconventional methods as a complement. Past experiences with untraditionally licensed people have been mixed. One woman told me my positive progress was due to treatment, and later said my negative feelings were also due to treatment. Uh, right. So basically, she was taking credit for everything no matter what and this is why I needed her. No thanks.
Hard to say whether your ex-coach left things open-ended because she sensed she could go no further because of your doubts, or if it was a scam and it was better to cut you loose to minimize damage to her reputation and business.