Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 3 November 2005 and 13 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive06. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FuelWagon 05:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

---

reframing

So, here is another blatant example of POV pushing against NLP. The article contains a section that says "Behind every behavior is a positive intention". I added an explanation that this is sometimes called reframing. [1]. This gets blanked reverted by DaveRight [2] simply saying "You are erroneous" and reverting multiple edits.

Case in point, DaveRight is in fact erroneous. According to Dilts, the "Behind every behavior is a positive intention" concept is called "reframing". You can verify this by going to an article written by Dilts titled "The NLP Pattern of the Month: Reframing" subtitle The Principle of Positive Intention [3].

THere is no excuse for this blanket reversion approach by DaveRight. There is no justification for deleting this parenthetical that is it sometimes called "reframing", given that a notable NLP source specifically associates the "positive intention" thing with the term "reframing". And yet, the anti-NLP editors are deleting accurate reporting of a pro-NLP source. FuelWagon 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe your reframing addition was incorrect Fuelwagon. But I changed it to fit in for the sake of compromise. Your other edits were definitely incorrect..Bookmain 04:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Many NLP items fall under multiple headings. Thus its core principles are also, functionally, presuppositions, and may be used as reframes since they put existing information into a new frame (viewpoint). This is a bit like saying "See, its not a Catholic, its an African". In other words, pointless to argue, both are right, it is a concept that is a principle, and also a reframe, and also a presupposition. FT2 05:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine FT2. But I did change the line to be more correct..Bookmain 06:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

In view of the fact that

1. Users HeadleyDown and JPLogan (and others) have consistently shown little idea of, and minimal respect for, Wiki policy and have shown this for some time now
2. There has been ongoing aggressive POV warring by these two (and possibly others) in the NLP article. [4] and [more references to follow] and possibly also [5] (by DaveRight; although it is citations, it seems a very slanted group of citations)
3. At least one editor has called the results of their work "some of the most biased editing I've read... If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopedia to edit" [6]
4. Valid and significant information based on original material are deleted by them on a frequent basis or replaced with POV wording. Established fact such as what NLP itself has identified as its goal, or direct textual based information, is described as "NLP claims.." and "supposedly...", ie weasel words. Example reversion: [7]

   Example - this text, comprising major corrections and explanations of what exactly NLP says, and including some citations and references, is based on citable source material, and this was noted on the Talk page. Despite this, it was reverted to a less complete and moderately inaccurate once [8], then again [9] and yet again [10] by HeadleyDown, despite at least two requests on the Talk page to identify any specific statements that were inaccurate or not common knowledge, which request was also ignored multiple times.

5. Concerns over NPOV are met with personal attack or repeatedly treated with contempt. [11] and [12]
6. Questions to ascertain extent of knowledge were ignored many times. Example: [13] and [14]
7. Ignorance of fundamental subject material, as demonstrated by lack of knowledge of full research, and edits to material changing it from material represented in NLP texts, to material of non-standard (but pseudoscience style) authors, which is then used as evidence it is pseudoscience. [references coming shortly]
8. Requests to discuss reverts on the talk page first, or to state exactly which facts were disputed, were ignored or dismissed [15]
9. On several occasions, facts (or the significance of some material) appear to have been invented, exaggerated, selectively chosen, or not checked at all, and equally valid facts not desired by the above-named to be suppressed, attacked or reverted. Example: [16] (Deletion of commonly ignored source model despite citation) and [17] (claim that critic is "world renowned" and performed "research" when he is a comparative nobody and wrote basically just an article)
10. The article does not actually even describe NLP as it stands (!)
11. Mediation was attempted and seems to have failed before I got here
12. I have attempted to make a start to sort out basic issues both on a separate page, and via a section explicitly described as"Not for flames but for better understanding of the issues", and again on HeadleyDown's talk page (with thanks and courtesy), all flamed in reply, typical response to label it "evangelism" and accuse of bias (again) [18]
13. When I eventually got HeadleyDown's (somewhat grudging) agreement to mediation, within hours of thanking him and giving factual private explanations for discussion, intended to help bridge the gap, HeadleyDown's response was personal attack and POV warring against even that.
14. I have given several warnings, as have other editors [19] that if this continues, Arbitration will result, possibly including an article ban, and asked for collaboration and a cooling down to avoid that. But nothing has improved. [20] and [21] and [22]
15. As a result of the above aggressive POV warring and other persistent breaches of wikipedia policy, progress on the article has been and is being unacceptably stalled by the inability of these people to grasp basic concepts such as "NPOV", "courtesy" and "writing for the enemy", despite many requests by multiple editors, and courteous reminders that it will not be acceptable if it continues.

I am inclined to take the matter of these two editors, and possibly others, to the Arbitration Committee. If so, it will not be on the broad "he said/she said", or "Group A/Group B" basis that the request for Mediation was based upon. It will be directly undertaken myself, and specifically for aggressive POV warring, personal attacks, and persistent irreconcilable non-compliance with wikipedia policies by HeadleyDown, JPLogan and possibly others (to be decided).

Please vote below if you would be supportive, against, or have other opinions on this matter at this time. Note that ArbCom does not in fact require a consensus to accept a matter, so this is more a "straw poll" of feeling. (Sock puppets and suspected sock puppets, including unknown anon IPs, may be ignored) But I would want to think very carefully about such a step if mediation may yet succeed, or if I am in fact alone in thinking this is appropriate.

• Support FT2 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Comaze 09:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lee1 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support FuelWagon 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC) I believe my first edit to this article was about a week ago, on 22:04, 26 October 2005, in which the very first sentence of the article opened like this: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific development proposed for programming the mind, I removed the POV declaration that NLP is factually declared to be pseudoscientific. [23]. Things have not improved much in the week or so since then. And it seems clear that NPOV policy is either grossly misunderstood by a number of editors or simply being flagrantly ignored. Numerous attempts to explain NPOV have been ignored. I don't have experience with the whole history of this article and all 16 points, but I support the notion that NPOV policy is not being followed here. ANd I'd be willing to submit evidence to arbitration regarding my experience on the NLP article.
• Support GregA 203.217.56.137 11:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, user:203.217.56.137. But you have only the one contribution under this address, and traditionally people with few edits are notrmally asked not to vote on matters like this, to avoid suspicion that they are accounts created by one "side" or the other just for the purpose. If you have an account, or have regularly watched this debate, and are not just a sock puppet, please feel free to edit your post adding more information why your vote should be included even though you have never made other contributions to the encyclopedia under this IP. It's not personal, I'm sure you are bona fide, but I'm sure you understand that even the appearance of bias would be best avoided, in the interest of scrupulous fairness, especially as there have been sock puppet accusations between other editors in the past. Please reply if you feel there are facts to consider that will change this, or indeed, contribute to the discussion. FT2 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FT2. Yes I've posted plenty here I think you'll agree. Any probs let me know - sorry about the IP address. GregA 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User previously warned vopte would not be counted; warning removed as user has identified self and is a known editor

• Support User:PatrickMerlevede in several areas this page is not the NLP as it is described in the core books of the field (those written between 1974-1980) - a blatant example to me is the use of the word engrams. I also believe some "skeptics" are overdoning their case, by even misrefresenting their refeences (e.g. the references to cults, which I already tried to correct 2 times)
• Support Justin9:54 am 11th November 2005. My first edit was about three months ago where the meta model was discussed. The topic of generalisations using meta model questions was lobbed together with a question for a simple deletion. I changed this twice more. It was reverted twice more then upon enterring for discussion I feel that some editors had been taking a turn toward the dramatic rather than even being remotely faithfully in stating what NLP is. Research was strong in one area but not other areas where I might suppose the editor thought the information wasn't important. The continued likenesss to engrams, Dianetics 9which involves talking to trees), cults and rituals (If I started talking about NLP and say it is a cult and they do rituals this might inspire a person to think it is some kind of witch craft or that I drink goats blood if they were so inclined) Without stating in what way NLP is like a cult or what rituals NLPers undergo i find these to be veiled insults to the institution and misleading to the reader

Comments

Hello FT2. Considering your recent additions of your own views to the article, I suggest that you need to go back to the reality check stage. We are in the constructive process of mediation, and if you hadn't noticed, the mediator is working well. He has even been moving or deleting criticisms from sections that your promoter team demanded to have supplied by neutral editors but then decided not to like. VoiceOfAll is working well for now. In future arbitration is always an option. I think it would be silly to pass up such a tolerant mediator as the present one. Regards AliceDeGrey 10:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

VofAll has been working on the mediation. Small edits to the article have taken place. But the personal attacks, the major POV warring, and the instant dismissal (as you have done yourself) of anyone seeking NPOV as part of "the pro group" or a "promoter" is not apparently being resolved by mediation, and this is what I am seeking to visit ArbCom with. Adequate requests and courtesy have been given, adequate concern was given that if the personal attacks and vehement warring continued then it would probably be felt that mediation was de facto doomed, and not only by me, and the situation is not fundamentally changed or likely to change; personal attacks and POV warring contuinue despite all the above.

ArbCom state that either mediation has formally failed, or reasons why you believe it will be fruitless. My reasons for believing the latter is the case, are given above, and I believe ultimately mediation will be fruitless and is doomed, because there is simply no sign whatsoever that Headley or JPLogan can comprehend wikipedia's meaning of "neutral" or other key WP policies. Please see WP:Arb

FT2 10:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No support. Just patience. HeadleyDown 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I think you are treating VoiceOfAll's expert efforts unfairly. He has stepped in to remove direct insults, and has made very clear instructions of what you should and should not do (eg accusations section). It still seems to me that further exploration towards actual proceedings is in order. As you said, personal attacks etc. These do indeed need to be resolved. I think I am coming closer to an answer that is more related to how we resolve differences.

For example. One way to go, is to continue fulfilling the issues requirements that VoiceOfAll has provisionally set out. I can see we are getting closer to doing that. Certainly I have plenty of information that can help out there.

I have tried to point out people's clear biases and they tend to be based on vested and reputational interests (NLP teachers). But I realise there will always be fanatics who will come here to deface the facts.

I wish somehow to resolve that to some extent also. I'm wondering whether giving the article a more educational flavour may help (eg, pointing out the difference between science and pseudoscience etc). Whatever way is fine.

I am a patient person and also agree that arbitration is a long way off. You have been here only a short while and you are calling for arbitration already. I think most people would feel that is rash. Also, I feel people should be a lot more patient considering the compromises already made by the mediator and non promoters. Certainly, the mediator is a force of good for wikipedia and has proven to handle things well. So I consider him a friend to all wikipedians. A good force to work with. 203.186.238.214 12:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC) HeadleyDown 12:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow FT2. That is an extremely appetising offer!.. Can you imagine- Comaze and others reverting facts during the arbitration, so called NLP experts adding the wrong theories, other so called NLP experts inadvertently adding pseudoscientific argument and refs about engrams and then trying to delete them (even though engrams are scientifically recognised and support the notion that NLP is science:), you adding your own biased views without supplying citations (because they don't exist). ANd you have not even slightly opened my can of NLP worms that I have stored away. Mmm, Yummy! However, I do think you have not given it enough time. As you have most definitely not represented the present mediation with any view to neutrality, I don't think you will be able to handle arbitration at all, let alone the article itself. With respect, its a nice offer, but you would do very nicely with VoiceOfAll on all balance. Best regards DaveRight 10:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it's so very kind of you to consider what we will do 'very nicely' with. I've never known you to be so concerned before. Thanks Lee1 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See above comment to User:203.217.56.137 for what neutrality means, Dave.

Also, please check your facts, which you (in common with Headley and Logan) are often abysmal at doing when it doesn't suit you:

1. ...So lets see. I can find citations for any facts in doubt, but as I don't know what is common ground on this, I'll list what I see, and you can always ask for a source citation on any points raised. Would that work for you?... (my edit of 05:41, October 30, 2005) [24]
2. ...No claims or statements are made that are unverifiable as far as I can tell, 4/ It explains both terms. Any criticisms please bring here, do not full-revert as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section... (my edit of 16:01, October 29, 2005) [25]

Additionally, in terms of NPOV, how does this rate: ...Can anyone think of a good new religious name for NLP? How about The Church of New Rolling Wizdicks?DaveRight 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)... [26]

Last, because I think you really need to consider your own actions as an editor (I did say it wasn't just Headley and Logan), did you notice that User:VoiceOfAll(MTG) and User:FuelWagon asked you to cite a source [27] "...[Please tweak the article] so that it has some indication of how many view it as pseudoscience. Has there been some sort of poll you could cite? Otherwise, "often regarded" is a little too fuzzy. Perhaps there is some psychologist/psychotherapist organization that has come out saying that NLP is pseudoscience, and you can report that?..."

Your response to this request for a citation was as follows: "...Sure, VoiceOfAll. Apart from all the psychologists, psychotherapists, and linguists, The British Society of Psychologists calls NLP pseudoscientific" [28]

Not only is that a completely groundless and patently untrue avoidance of a citation, whats worse is, the one fact you did allege is also false, because you didn;t check your facts. In fact not even the BPS agrees with you. They don't count it as pseudoscience in the sense you are describing, much less "complete charletanary" as was in the article.

The BPS's actual stance, if you had cared to check for yourself, is that they count it along with Psychotherapy, Cognitive behavior therapy and Hypnotherapy [29] as fields supervised by the other main UK accrediting body in the psychotherapy field, the UK College of Psychotherapists. This is a major European accrediting body. If you check their view on NLP, you'll find that the Association of NLP International has had a seat on the governing board not too long ago [30] and also that the ANLP's Counselling and Therapy arm is still a member in good standing as at 2005 [31]. "Pseudoscience"? Or POV warriors?

FT2 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I can see that you are not using the libraries to your advantage. Stop surfing and start researching. HeadleyDown 14:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning: Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. It's not your place to tell other editors what to do. Uncle Ed 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed. It can be found here. Individual users have been notified on their talk pages. FT2 10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed wanders by

I was asked (via private e-mail) to take a look at this.

1. Even a quick glance suffices to discover that there is too much sarcasm here.
2. FuelWagon is right: You must say that "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience".

Please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and Wikipedia:POV. Uncle Ed 19:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"X states that NLP is pseudoscience" is what I have been saying is the NPOV way to have criticism, so we should all agree here by now. And yes, the sarcasm here is over the top.

Also, lets not talk about arbitration right now, as that is by no means effective nor necessary.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza}20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, VoA,

As you will see, I left a query about this on your talk page, as a courtesy, but never got a reply. Its possible you were away a bit or didn't see it. But either way, my concerns (as regards mediation) are these:

1. I have sought reconciliation with Headley. I have put effort into it despite insults and accusations. It doesn't seem to have worked, see his talk page and list of grounds for referral above for my reasons for feeling this.
2. The bottom line of the matter is virulent POV warring. I have tried, but I just don't see any sign of change on that, and unless it stops - totally - then ultimately mediation as I have said, is doomed to fail too.
3. I know mediation's best, when it works, and you'll see from Headley's talk page that I tried, and from this talk page that I ignored several insults and POV edits and at least a few personal attacks, to do so. Please see my reply to Alice above, why I feel mediation is likely to fail, and hence why I feel an ArbCom referral is not premature.
4. If you have reasons to believe that NPOV will be reached on this article, then can you let me know your basis for that feeling? Because to be honest, I just don't see it, and I've mediated informally a fair few wikipedia disputes. The gap seems too wide.

If you can reassure me, I'll listen. The difficulty is that I don't see that kind of progress being at all likely. I had offered Headley mediation, and told him quite clearly in 2 or 3 places that if declined by his actions Arbitration would be the next resort. His reply has been a continuation of personal remarks, attacks, and POV warring, and complete denial of even a "this is a basis for discussion". So I now feel referral to ArbCom has become clearly appropriate. This isn't just sarcasm. This is fairly heavily slanted POV article warring. The sad truth is, that apart from picking selectively every negative sounding quote they can find and citing it, I have not really seen Headley or Logan contribute anything much about NLP, in a wikipedia fashion, to this article. Headley today asserts that "This article gives the sum human knowledge of NLP as it stands."

Even despite this, most of their major citations when actually examined in context are not only slanted, but routinely unrepresentative or factually misrepresented, sometimes grossly so. Morgan was. Heap was. British Physchological Society was. NLP description is. And so on. Other contributions of theirs are invented or unsourced and flagrantly inaccurate. many other editors have complained too, recently, and I get the impression that they don't seem to feel mediation is helping enough.

If you feel I am mistaken, can we discuss it by email? I can be reached on my public email, "contactbox" AT "softhome" DOT "net". Thanks - and sorry for the lack of optimism.

FT2 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed and VoiceOfAll. Your wish is my command. Or something like that:) Thanks for the input. I will do my best to remove my temper. And clearer attribution has been requested, and so it will be followed. Best regards HeadleyDown 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Headley. But actually your temper does not need controling. As I said before, simply stop engaging people who repeatedly badger after you have answered already. Its just a trolling tactic they use, and as above, they will re-post your response to leverage their POV. Just keep providing the good research you have and constructively answering valid questions as you have. I'm not telling you what to do, this is just a friendly reminder. As usual you are correct about no need for mediation, and your responses generally follow Voiceofall's requests extremely well. Cheers JPLogan 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem JPL is, that most of the "answers" given have not actually been answers. Typical answers have included "All therapists know it". Or where specific points are raised but not discussed, brushed aside in a non-scientific manner. That is why people keep asking again. because you sometimes actually have to answer the question properly, not just keep saying say why you don't think it merits closer examination or why you think you have answered it. FT2 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Following the latest revert by HeadleyDown, in which he reverted a sourced, neutral, title-description of NLP by its founders, saying it was "promotional", I'm afraid I feel this is the last sign that mediation could, or will, work. The text added to the introduction, the formal description of NLP according to its creators. This was fully described on the talk page, and sourced. My above feelings seem to be confirmed. I am sorry, VoiceOfAll, I shall be asking ArbCom to handle this. It seems from the straw poll above that this is not a solo decision. If they reject it, then I will understand and try to work with this more, but the POV warring here is persistent, learning is not happening or intended to happen, and (insofar as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a game, with policies), this is not okay.

FT2 15:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I am simply being cooperative. If you wish to move antagonistically against mediation and compromise, then that is your choice. I feel you will find yourself in the minority. If you notice the numerous compromises made towards the promoters then you would not make such a decision. Believe me. You are welcome here, but your extreme moves in the light of the summer of extreme moves is simply a repeat of what went on before and failed. I do not wish to distract you from your own decisions, but I have been here for quite a while, and arbitration seems to be quite a few horizons away. I personally am open to many options. I and others here have made many compromises and will probably be open to others who are willing to shed real light on this subject. Otherwise, your efforts are directed to whichever cliff you wish to climb. Regards HeadleyDown 15:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger of promotional NLP site

Hello all. The proposal to merge a speculative and promotional NLP site with wikipedia is completely unacceptable. The information is conflicting, mixed up, unverifiable, unfairly presented, unfactual and so on. It is not up to wikipedia to rescue failing websites and wikispam is also completely unacceptable. Lets just get on with resolving those 2 remaining issues. HeadleyDown 06:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey headley, what are you talking about? what site? GregA 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Science solution

As mentioned in many places above it seems to me that science may be the solution to a lot of problems here. For example, I noticed that the engram is actually an incredibly persistent issue in psychology and neurology, and that is probably why it is used by NLP theorists. I had a look at the engram page, and it seems to be totally wrong. Not only is it vague, but it is also wrongly attributed to dianetics.

As the engram really is a strong ongoing research stream in neuroscience and psychology amongst other sciences, I suggest that the NLP promoters start accepting it as a concept. We have tried to represent it scientifically here, but promoters/practitioners keep trying to remove that explanation.

One way to do this would be to represent the engram properly as a scientific subject on the engram page. The engram is the memory trace that represents learning and has a very good science history. It is generally construed on the holistic level, just like NLP uses it, and its diagramatic representations match those of the NLP diagrams. It is different from the way dianetics uses the engram concept. There are papers on critiquing the dianetics engram as it is very flawed scientifically. Have a go at the engram page and that will probably help your case enormously. Regards JPLogan 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now there's a good compromise. I can clarify on the article also! DaveRight 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with that. If the problem is that engrams are badly described, then lets solve that one. Personally I think JPL is on the ball here, what may have happened is that although not used in original formulations of NLP, *if* the concept was in science *and* was sensible and credible, then NLP theoreticians may have started to refer to it. the problem then might be that the engrams article is misleading. Trouble is, that article, at present, does not say what NLP says, nor was it used in original formulations... which may be why some people are removing it. Clean it up, and lets see if it then says what NLP is saying. FT2 11:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also think this is a good idea. It will clarify things a lot. HeadleyDown 11:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that's going but it's interesting. So NLP primary texts don't refer to engrams themselves, but to concepts which sound the same as engrams (to someone who knows engrams). However psychology and scientology define engrams differently, and the current Wikipedia page on engrams does not remotely sound similar to the concepts written about in NLP primary texts. Therefore, we should rewrite the wikipedia article on engrams to match the understanding of engrams that correspond with the NLP concepts, so that we can simplify the concepts of NLP by simply saying "see 'engrams'". ...interesting.... GregA

Not quite. Its a suggestion that if there is anything useful in "engrams", or it has multiple uses and definitions, maybe if that article was more complete and covered and cited scientific views or NLP views or scientology views or whatever too, then we'd maybe end up able to say "some modern NLP writers compare NLP's understaning of X to modern scientific views on Engrams", and it would then be accurate. Thats a new field to me too. If, as JPL suggests, NLP texts refer to concepts which are similar to "engrams", then thats worth knowing. The trouble is, the article on Engrams doesn't have any way to check that with at all, because its not itself describing the term fully and sounds like mumbo jumbo anyhow. Thats my understanding of what JPL is saying, anyhow. FT2 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo. The NLP trainers I know in Europe and Russia use the term engrams in different ways to each other. But I think the suggestion is good. Certainly it should be stated that Hubbard's engrams are different from science and NLP's engrams. That is what encyclopedias are good for. The engram page said dianetics uses engrams (just after a scientific description) last time I looked. Just find a book that says the dianetics engram koncept is wrong, and Bob is your uncle:) From my understanding, Hubbard engrams are about pain. Science does not give them such a negative view, they are just representations of learning in the neurons. Also Hubbard talks about demons as part of them:) Read Dianetic, the science and technik of achievement. It is very funny:) Hubbard went from science fiction to fiction science:) But engrams were taught as a holist theoretical koncept in my undergraduate psychology. There is nothing wrong with it and the research is still following it even for finding where the engram is in the parts of the brain. When I read Bandler and amigos I do not see demon engrams, but I do see mental pathways and circuits of scientific proposed engrams. HansAntel 03:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Hans. We certainly need some world views and more scientific views here. Regards..JPLogan 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Engrams (removed)

I removed all of this text from the document. It is such a minority view that it is not relevant to the article. --start text removed--- The term "neuro-linguistic programming" includes three ideas:

1. Assumes that from birth, our unconscious creates and develops behavioral programs. Sometimes named automata, these programs are called thus in reference to the operation of the computers.
2. Any behavioral program rests on a neuronal basis; the product of an engrams resulting from our sensory perceptions.
3. Language reflects the internal states of the person, internal states resulting from the neuronal or engram programs. NLP is thus proposed as a study of the way in which the human beings structure their perceptions.

The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming habits and mental associations, which some NLP practioners consider to be individual engrams (Sinclair, 1992; [32] Overdurf & Silverthorn, 1995; Drenth, 2003). Engrams are a scientific term for a theoretical neurological mechanism considered by some scientists to be the means by which memory traces are stored in the brain. (Note: Dianetics uses the term but in a different way). Engrams, give a patterned response which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence and involve beneficial automatic activities as well as pernicious ones like addictive behaviour (Sinclair, 1992)(Derks & Goldblatt, 1985). The engram has been used to explain the NLP anchoring process that underlies patterns such as the "swish" process. As such it is a theoretical concept that people used to understand NLP (Drenth, 2003)(Levelt 1995). For instance, Sinclair (1992) theorises that NLP processes are explained through the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams [33] of the mind/body connection in order to effect change, to develop unconscious competence, and to treat traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994). Other explanations of anchoring include: a form of Pavlovian conditioning, or "consciously creating the placebo effect" (Rex & Carolyn Sikes). O'Connor and McDermot (1996) state that NLP works through reframing and belief change methods. --end text. --Comaze 06:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of this text could be merged into lower sections. I also noticed that "programming" is already mentioned in the intro, so then I don't the removal of "programming and re-programming", since it was redundant.Voice of All(MTG) 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Engram is such a minority view that is does not belong in wikipedia. Contact ANY reputable NLP trainer such as Robert Dilts, John Grinder, Richard Bandler, Jonathan Alteld, Steve Andreas, Connirae Andreas, Joseph O'Connor, Christina Hall, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, etc. Read the foundational NLP books (Structure of Magic Vol 1 & 2, Patterns 1 & 2, Frog into princes, NLP Vol 1 (1980) -- no mention of engram. Search the Dilts encyclopedia (online). Read ANY popular book on NLP. Search on Google Print. This is a deliberate attempt to link NLP to scientology. A straw man argument. Compare this "neurolinguistic programming"+engram -wikipedia" 29 results vs "neurolinguistic programming"+engram" 382 results. Someone is using wikipedia to create a neologism. A serious wikipedia violation. Compare "neuro-linguistic programming" +enneagram (11,000) with "neuro-linguistic programming" +engram -wikipedia (271). NOTE: enneagram is not even used in NLP anymore! But I think this may be source of the confusion. --Comaze 06:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, much as you would love to reduce the scope of views to that of Grinder, that will simply not happen. Taking into account the international views of theory into NLP, engrams are central. I know it is quite a vague concept, but it explains the neuro part of NLP perfectly, and it coincides exactly with NLP's association of engrams and the "unconscious". Someone mentioned (I think Hans) that the Anglo American view was too narrow. I have collected a lot more views on NLP from Europe, and those views include more claims to science. OK they are pseudo, but those are the broad views. They will be represented and the engram concept is clarifying (explains neuro). AliceDeGrey 06:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Straw man (from straw man article)

One can set up a straw man as follows:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Do you recognise a pattern here? --Comaze 11:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. NLP is not an opponent. NLP in this case is an article. Engram is not a misrepresentation. If anything it is a compromise in favour of NLP. It is after all, a scientific notion, and there is a difference between Hubbard's negative engrams, and NLP's engrams. The most important thing here, though, is engram is not invented. It is simply there to explain what NLP means by neuro in neurolinguistic (senses to nerves to engrams (the general mental pathways in the brain).

Actually, engram is really far more scientifically accurate than some of the other similar ideas stolen from sciences and placed out of context. For example, Dilts talks about the Hebb rule, and then mentions neural nets. Hebb never mentioned neural nets in the context of the brain. He always referred to engrams. Actually, if you talk to neuroscientists, they will choke if you talk about neural nets and the brain. Specifically, neural nets are artificial computer simulations and calculation setups. NeurONAL nets are small and very specific pathways in the brain. What NLP is describing is none of those, but engrams, and some of the proponents of NLP (especially the European ones) are smart enough to know the difference. The engram is a nerve pathway that represents learning.

I noticed that FT2 had made some changes to the engram page to represent things more specifically. I also made contributions there, and it is far more clear now. I still find it strange that you would want to remove something that is accurately descriptive and distinguishes NLP from dianetics. HeadleyDown 11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Engrams incompatiable with Turing Machine

The localisation of memory or storage of memory (engram) is of no interest to an NLP practitioner who is responding only to what he/she can see, hear, feel, touch or bite. You cannot see the storage of memory (engram). Repeating the word engram 10 times throughout the article is giving it undue weight. The idea of engram is not compatiable with idea imported from Noam Chomsky and transformational grammar that the mind is essentially a turing machine. The neuro is referring to the neurological transforms (F1 transforms) that occur before first access (FA). This idea is best represented by Korzybski's map/territory distinction and Gregory Bateson's criteria of mind (1979). According to Grinder the scope of NLP covers the linguistically mediated maps of first access, what Freud named primary experience (Grinder & Bostic 2001). This is a strict view, that is consistent with other NLP developers and originators dating back to 1975 (and 1933 if you count Korzybski). If the European sources you mention are using engram as a theory to explain how NLP works, then they are not making the disction between what is, and what is not strictly NLP. --Comaze 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Turing machines are completely incompatible with human potential and representation of learning, and resources. Engrams handle those aspects very well. You seem to be obsessed with a very narrow view. HeadleyDown 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Most NLP theorizing is bunk, but...

Much of the pure scientific aspects of the discussion here are things which I am not well versed in, however, the "success seminar" angle is something I am familiar with, though not the Tony Robbins "I can cure you" kind. Suffice it to say, the usable application to be found here is in helping people steer their minds to a more effective premise in critical areas.

For example, there is a "success saying" which goes like this: "Your mind is not like a rubber band, once it stretches, it does not go back to it's original position".

I have found from experience that if you can get someone with low self-esteem and/or high self-doubt to truly believe that, they will then start regularly thinking that things can and will get better for them.

Recent case in point: A close friend of my family is in her 40's, overwieght, smokes, is out of work and 3 months past due on her mortgage. As a condition of helping her with enough $$ to get current on the mortgage (between me and her father, we bridged the gap), she was oblidged to come see me face to face for an hour, to get the check. At this meeting, I first made sure of the tally of the required $$, then I reminded her that I'd known her for 8 years and never once butted into her pesonal life. "Thats' true", she confirmed. So then, here is what I explained to her: I said "look, you are about to lose your house and you are spending over $150 a month on cigarettes, what the hell are you doing?" There was no argument on this point and then I explained an NLP "success saying". I said "look Susie (pen name for this), I am giving you this $$ because we care about you, but let me tell you something, the secret I am about to tell you is worth over 100 times more and here it is: Your mind is not like a rubber band, once it stretches, it does not go back to it's original position".

"It's that simple, all you have to do is stop telling yourself you can't and start telling yourself you can. After a certain point, you really will understand that your mind has stretched and you will know that it's not going back to where it was. You will be a different, better person than you are now".

I also gave here an easy translation Bible and set her to reading Proverbs, explaining that she needed some new grist for the mill (of her mind), such as "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid".

Anyway, the long and the short of it was this all happened about 8 weeks ago. Since then, she has quit smoking, got a job and started a diet/excercize program. When she called me 2 weeks ago to give an update, it was clear that she was convinced that her mind both can stretch and was in the process of stretching. She was really much happier, etc.

Now, will she stay that way? I say yes, if she actually does believe that her mind can stretch and if she works at stretching it. So to wrap this up, this NLP stuff, so far as I can see, really only works when you have a subject who is ready, willing and able to focus their mind effectively. The results come not as a consequence of he suggestion (the "programming"), but rather, as a consenquence of the subject actually focusing intensly on the target - it's the power of sustained postive expectations, nothing more. Those who claim to have developed a structured system of tapping into how people think and steering it via NLP are just putting a fancy name on helping people believe "Yes!, I can". A good football coach already does this; think "the Tuna", Bill Parcells.

In my view, helping people focus and moving them forward in life is the only worthwile application for this technology and frankly, the rest of it (I feel) is a bunch of crap dreamed up by people who are interested in considering themselves superior "Hah! see how I led that person around by the nose"...

Also, it really only works if the suggestion being made is an actual macro-truth - as in always true for everyone. In my mind, I always have available this: "Your mind is not like a rubber band, once it stretches, it does not go back to it's original position" as an absolute certainty and am always ready to share anecdotal proof that it's true with anyone who asks or othrwise displays interest. Personally, I am fully convinced that the reason why this particular suggestion works (if genuinely apprehended by the subject) is because it's true about all people, all the time.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Rex. Thanks for your input. Yes, you have some clear perceptions about the subject. NLP is generally promoted as a science or scientifically sounding for the sake of sales with no serious effort to test and verify. Regards HeadleyDown 11:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi rex.

I think the problem comes down to this: the founders of NLP chose the word "programming" for its cybernetics connotations (in the 1960's) -- and they chose really badly, because the word is ubiquitous in cults and suggestion, where it means something like instilling, often by suggestion, another person's or a cult's ideas, into a more suggestible person.

NLP is very badly named, no question of it. A better term would be neuro-linguistic patterning. It's not about instilling via self-belief. Its closer to instilling by pattern-modification. If you tie an unfamiliar knot 100 times, your muscles learn the new pattern; belief has nothing to do with it.

NLP says, that everything a person does, can potentially be viewed at that level, if we knew how. It says you can in principle (and with varying degrees of difficulty and skill), rewire dysfunctional patterns of thinking and behavior to make them more productive, and you can study how others who are highly capable structure their internal habitual ways of being, and adopt ones similar, and that these may help you learn to become more capable too. It says that if you could establish a less reflexive connection between seeing and strong feeling, then just maybe a phobic won't have to have such a strong negative sensation when they see whatever stimulus is involved, and that this doesn't require understanding of the past, its almost an engineering process mentally speaking - disconnecting or weakening a connection.

Trance, or hypnosis, is seen as useful since it bypasses the conscious mind (which isn't really that relevant when working with unconscious internalized habits anyway), and more importantly bypasses conscious dissection and analysis which tend to favor and rationalize the status quo and can thus block alternative learnings.

Here is an example of NLP from my own recent experience:

I had a long distance friend, who was agoraphobic. He panicked on planes, could barely handle buses, couldn't visit malls. The real clinical thing. He didn't understand why, in fact he'd only just discovered there was a medical term for all these vague different situations he felt panic in. Really bad, really screwing up his life. To cut a long story short, we discovered something fascinating. What was going on was, that somewhere in his visual processing, far away things were being subtlely distorted in his perception. Not enough to notice, but enough to have a vague "something feels wrong" sense when he looked at far away things. The closer something was, the more clear, "normal" and bright it looked. The further away, the more it was subtlely, weirdly, ever so slightly fuzzy and somehow distorted. It was so subtle, he wasn't consciously aware of it at all, until we explored how exactly he "saw". Naturally it then makes perfect sense to me that he had agoraphobia. Every time he looked at closer things, he felt okay, every time he looked at far away things he got this unconscious subtle feeling of unease. And where do you see far away things...? Outdoors, in malls, on transport. So every time he's in big spaces he's feeling unease... small spaces he's not... classic conditioning. So the remedy we used was, first, to check how far away he could see something and not feel it was distorted, and then practice seeing things undistorted further away. We also worked on being curious about things, textures, perspectives, rather than just ignoring them, to give him a different way to look at big scenes and see detail within them. Very practical, very commonsense, and very pragmatic. And about as far from "wholism" or "unable to describe" as it gets.

That is what NLP means, when it talks about pattern and program, and "subjective reality". Not idiocy like instilling belief, or cults, or wish-wash. Pure observation and exploration of how people do this thing we call "behavior" and "awareness", and the skill to nail down through the haze, exactly at what point it's gotten dysfunctional. Yes, some trainers do use personal charisma of suggestibility to instill belief... but that's charisma based stuff utilizing NLP, it's not actually NLP.

Hope that helps, rex. FT2 11:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Rex is being more insightful than you realise, FT2. Notice the healthy lack of doctrine in his words. Looks like an open mind. You see the problem with the "subjective reality" part is that NLP proposes that they know the structure of it.

The reality is, they have no clue about the structure. Or more accurately, they have chosen clues which are not accurate. Well, I don't claim to have the answers on that one, but if I did claim it, I may make some money. It is a wild claim in itself. It presupposes that you can learn to do what Einstein did without the immense energy and talent he threw into all his years of obsessive explorations and so on.

Plus the theorizing that goes on within NLP is wild and unconnected. Going from Chomsky's theoretical and untested grammar to a method that is supposed to make you a wizard is a huge leap indeed. And one that makes practitioners fall flat every time from the look of things.

So far promoters don't seem to have persuaded anybody about the science/technology/amazing magic of NLP apart from themselves. That seems to verify the research done on NLP. I do not wish to antagonize here though. Merely to act as a mirror. Science and common sense are the best way to go meta. Regards HeadleyDown 12:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think thats part of the problem. Subjective reality is nothing more or less than "you don't see everything the same way I do; I don't experience as you do". Every good book on therapy or communication or parenting will emphasize somewhere, "Don't assume they think and feel as you do, because they don't". So I don't think the "subjective reality" part is that controversial. It says, that if you make a blanket assumption that what life's like for them is (in every way) not going to be how you assume it is for you -- you'll be more right than wrong.

We don't know the structure of human experience and reality. Like science, NLP tries to say, "these are ueful concepts and structures". The Bohr atom was wrong, so technically was Newton, and so in time probably will be Einstien's models too. But the concepts they introduced are valued because they give us ways to think about and model reality that are more accurate than we had before them. NLP suggests a way to think about how people's inner world is structured, that is capable of being more precise in some ways than what's gone before, and less precise than what will follow.

It says one can break down what a person does and believes, and what they think of as possible, then puts it back together in a more effective way, analogous to sports coaching. You can't "be" Einstein. But when Einstein tried to explain where he got his ideas, he described sitting on the end of a light beam. That, for Einstein, appeared to be a crucial step in how he innovated relativity -- he placed himself in unusual positions. What would happen to my perception, if I was on the event horizon, or travelling with light? That's NLP in action, modelling. We might not be able to be geniuses like Einstien, but we can have a better idea what he perceived to be important aspects of how he did what he did.

Don't know if that helps at all. But it seems sensible. Some comment on the example I gave above would be useful, too. FT2 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for Rex, but I think you have gone a few planets off target FT2. You speak of good books, and you have NLP books in mind. When I think of good books I think of how to retain and maintain normality in a crazy world. Psychotherapy is designed to do such a thing. It doesn't always succeed but it does a lot better than NLP. I am not talking about Freudian analysis, but about the empirically measured and objectively assessed methods that really do help according to reality (in contrast with speculative hype). Those methods of science that I speak of are self correcting, and even so common sense that they seem obvious. But in that way they help to keep people on the straight and narrow more or less. Whereas NLP promises genius, amazing abilities, and getting over your problems in a blink of an eye. It is purely a mass marketed psychobabble market. The world view is that it is just psychocrap. You can dress any salesman in a suit and sell the stuff with no satisfaction. But there are some things that are verifiable. They are tested and found to be valid. Perceptions of normal people are elicited, and their perceptions are generally ...Yes that seems about right. Whereas NLP is psychobabble from start to finish with nothing more than a bunch of lame promises and insecurity building presuppositions that is guaranteed to set up and complete insecure people's disappointment. Any relatively healthy person will just shrug off NLP like a 24 hr virus. At least, that is the Eurasian perspective according to my studies :) Spend you Euros and have a glass of wine:) Regards HeadleyDown 14:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

References

I'm going to keep cleaning up the references and add links and notes where appropriate. I want to get he article to the stage where anyone can come in and easily check the sources. I'm going to stay out of any content disputes for a while until it cools down :) --Comaze 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. If cleaning means removing core references that you alone deem disposable, then forget it. If I see you altering the references, I will simply revert, and I will expect any neutral editor to do the same when considering your past and recent history. HeadleyDown 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Opening NLP Obscurantisms

Hello FT2. Further to your requests to discuss. I understand your urge to promote using obscurantisms on the opening of the article, but as discussed 3 weeks ago during mediation, hype and confusion is not appropriate for an encyclpopedia. A clear and instructive opening is requred that tells the reader straight away about their own perceptions (ie, not a programming language, but a way to program the mind). Not a study (sitting in libraries reading books or doing degrees, or publishing peer reviewed papers), but a self help technique. The study of subjective experience has already been criticised by scientists as hype and exageration. Presently the subject is classified as pseudoscientific by more scientists and scientific bodies than you realise. It is fine to explain straight away what NLP is in reality according to the sum of human knowledge on NLP. It is unacceptable to promote the subject using terms that are deliberately obscure and arguable. NLP is a method for programming the mind. Many NLP promoters use that explanation and it is helpful. That has been mediated already. Please learn to cooperate. I understand you have not been around here long. I will remain tolerant to your uncooperative actions. Regards HeadleyDown 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, you seem to confuse two distinctly different activities whithin the domain of NLP: NLP-modeling - which is a study of human excellence and NLP-application, which could be "а method for programming the mind" as sold by Tony Robbins, for instance. I suggest you learn this important distiction to avoid further confusion. You can read about it here: http://www.whisperinginthewind.com/p1c2.htm or here: http://www.nlpacademy.co.uk/WhatisNLP.asp. --Thecroaker 15:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello TheCroaker. I simply represent the views of the scientists that I have read about. If those views see Anthony Robbins as one of the voices of NLP, then that is how they will be represented. Remember, NLP does not only study excellence. NLP also studies some very fringe behaviours including modelling those of the occult and also some other dubious and reprehensible behaviours. Those will also be represented HeadleyDown 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, you are absolutely right. With respect to the above, the point should be something like "The founders of NLP, Bandler and Grinder intended NLP to be the field concerned about modeling of human excellence and produced NLP-models of some psychotherapists (Erickson, Perls, Satir) described in books such as the Structure of Magic vol. I, II and others. However, their followers seem to mostly ignore this path, insted concentating on developing various mind-programming techniques. Due to the initial lack of precise definitions for terms like "excellence" and "genius", some NLP practitioners engage in modeling of behaviours considered occult, dubious and reprehensible by some scientists". This is the view I would totally agree upon. Thecroaker 17:25, 14 November 2005

It would be interesting to make these kinds of things clear. Several disagreements though - firstly it's misleading to call people "followers" ("ignoring the path") :). Secondly it's misleading to call them "mind-programming techniques", or to say that others were developing these things - if the focus on modeling was lost, it was largely because the focus became the training and application of the patterns that were modeled (which is quite different!). There is no accident in the lack of precise definitions of "excellence" as NLP modeling can be applied to many fields and it should be those fields themselves that determine who is a model of excellence (eg: I do not decide who a chess genius is, for modeling - rather I speak to people in this field and learn how they determine these things, and use the field's own concepts). There is also no judgement at all regarding what can be modeled and many things have been, it doesn't matter what scientists think of the fields either - except that HOW can we know who a genius is if someone's abilities can not be measured? how do you know if you've duplicated someone's abilities if you haven't got a way of measuring?. This perhaps could have been clearer in early descriptions of the codifying stage of modeling (modeling was never too explicit in the early days was it?). GregA 03:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now lets have some respect and cooperation with VoiceOfAll. In the interest of cooperation, lets work through the issues that have not been tackled and stop going over issues that have already been deemed acceptable by the mediator and the majority. Best regards HeadleyDown 17:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"deemed acceptable by the mediator" is overstating a mediator's role. A mediator only works to resolve the differences between editors. If editors still dispute something that a mediator deems acceptable, then it is not yet resolved and the mediator will need to mediate the dispute between editors, not the article. FuelWagon 05:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley... you are mistaken. Put simply.

• It is not "hype" to describe a subject in its own words. Its about as neutral as it gets in fact.
• It is certainly more neutral than the present wording. For example, sales, or communication clarity, or gaining an insight into how others think (or claiming to) may be many things, but they are certainly not "self help". So the present description is highly inaccurate - not surprisingly since the description I have added is the one cited on NLP websites, every source reference book, identically dewscribed by each of the founders, and cited by a large number of papers, whereas the one you revert to is a third party opinion or description, based upon one type of use of it.
• If scientists consider the name, or description, "hype", thats a separate point. On Wikipedia, one describes what the field considers itself as (as User:FuelWagon said) and then critique it if needed. That's Wikipedia NPOV policy even for your own preferred examples and pseudoscience.
• A study of... does not mean sitting in a library to most people. That is "studying" not "a study".
• The term "programming", is described as I have detailed. You're thinking of another use for the term, and that might be how a variety of scientists see it even - but that unfortunately is not the meaning used in the NLP field.
• I note, and reject, the straw man in your words: "I understand your urge to promote using obscurantisms". This is neutrality, and policy. But you know thats a line we differ on. Which is why I feel this matter will end up in ArbCom's lap, either now, or at some time.
• I note your appreciation that I "have not been around here long", but it's unwarranted. I've been an editor on this article since July 2004, whereas you've been POV warring here for 3 months. I've been active on Wikipedia for almost 18 months and have worked in-depth on a very wide range of articles, with a good reputation; you have been active since August 2005 and (from what I can tell from your contributions list) your sole contribution, if one can call it that, has been to slant this article.

One more fact stated without checking... and one more condescending comment, Headley. Inappropriate. But telling.

FT2 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FT2. You have not covered the issue that your addition is unclear and gives readers a hard time with the opening. Now instead of insisting on such uncooperative sidetracking, you could get on with the issues presented below. HeadleyDown 20:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what NLP describes itself as, and therefore in principle that's what needs describing. If the description is accurate but you, personally, feel it is going to be hard for readers to understand, then you need to figure a way to make the accurate description readable, rather than take the easy way out by substituting an inaccurate one. It seems reasonable to me, comparing other specialized subject introductions.

Whatever else, the giveaway that the above is a rationalization, and basically you have a determination and desire to slant the article, is that your responses were not "thats too complicated". They were "thats promotion". It is not a cause for personal attacks, that someone else expects accuracy in the text.

FT2 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. The lines you proposed for the opening were unclear and did not satisfy the requirements of the mediated version, plus the study of structure etc really is a promotional obscurantism. I merely wish to state we have some things to sort out here. Please focus on completing these following tasks. Regards HeadleyDown 01:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. This is funny. I was taught that I should not use the "study of structure of..." to explain to businesslike people what I was doing. My trainer said that if you tell them that, they just go "Huh?". HansAntel 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: to Headley et al, just because I am mediating here does not mean that I have the final say. I am just trying to make comprimises and keep everyone here together.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking in on this article for a while and I think your presence here is appreciated by all neutral editors, VoiceOfAll. There are some editors here who would like to see the back of you though, and its clearly because they do not like to compromise. People calling for arbitration at such an early stage are seriously biased and seem to be destined for arbitration to tell them clearly that they are biased. I believe they should start questioning their own POV. Considering the amount of changes they insist upon making after compromises have already been made towards them, I suggest the NLP/arbitration promoters use their imaginations to consider how biased and fanatical they seem to relatively NLP savvy outsiders such as myself. JC

I think theres a slight chance you might be talking about me. The trouble here is not NLP or non-NLP. Personally, Ive got knowledge of it, but on Wikipedia I don't have any axe except NPOV. And I know wikipedia policies, and when they are being badly abused, and I've said so several times. Headley & Co haven't really stopped ignoring Wiki policies, and that is the issue, not the article, to me. I don't see any sign he's likely to change that either. Its a clear obvious case of aggressive POV warring, based on his behavior. It's been going on a relatively long time now. The arbitrator knows he has had respectful communications from me on more than one occasion now to discuss the matter, as has HeadleyDown himself. He knows I respect the work he is doing, because I have spoken respectfully, asked his opinion, tried at first to respect his work, and the like. I just think its a fruitless task, because fundamentally Headley & Co don't act as if they want to accept that Wikipedia isnt a debating board, but an encyclopedia, and has policies that function specifically to stop this kind of thing. So no, this isn't an "early stage" at all. As for changes... if an article is factually incorrect, and the reason it's factually incorrect is POV warring rather than reasonable dispute... no. Then correcting the article is what editors are intended to do. Collaboratively if possible, or using other policies provided. How I seem to you, is something we can discuss if you like. If you read my posts here, you'll see an awful lot of courteous and fair discussion and requests to discuss being ignored or dismissed or sidestepped. FT2 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I notice you have continued to add the obscurantist/promotional section to the opening yet again. In doing so, you are turning compromise into uncompromise. Careful and considered compromise was made on that section through mediation. Turning compromise into uncompromise is completely against mediation. Try to work on resolving the outstanding issues. HeadleyDown 06:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Completing issues

Intro

We seem to have two different version, I merged them as best I could. If anything else should be added, then lets talk.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 06:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, VofA. I don't think the introduction is accurate in the encyclopaedic (or indeed other) senses:

• The first sentence Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a commercially promoted method for programming the mind...
  • "Hypnotherapy is a commercially promoted method for programming the mind? Psychotherapy is commercially marketed for programming the mind? School is a commercially promoted method of programming the mind? Like... that's the sole explanation?? Doesn't this sound wrong? Shouldnt an introduction describe it as it sees itself?
  • Further, it is not accurate. As described, its not a "method for programming the mind". The version I added was far more precise.
  • In any event, "programming" has extremely strong POV associations with cult style programming, which this use of the word clearly is very different from.
• It reinstates the term "NLP language" which is a non existant nonsense term.
• Last, I find it curious that the paragraph evaluating its standing states that it is "unsupported", "pseudoscience" and "a dubious therapy", every negative going, but the extremely relevant Sharpley citation, despite having a page ref etc, is considered unsuitable although it clarifies and balances the above.

We haven't even begun to cover the mis-characterization as "pseudoscience" and lacking credibility, yet.

Out of respect for VoA, if someone can explain these rationally, neutrally, without POV warring and policy violations, please do so. (Note that excuses like "the real expalanation is too complicated so an incorrect POV one is better" are not okay). That's the reason I'm leaving this clearly unbalanced material at this time. And VofA, you have my email from a previous post, if you would like to discuss, please do contact me that way too. FT2 06:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done VoiceOfAll. Hopefully now we can just get on with resolution. Regards HeadleyDown 06:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2 and VoiceOfAll. I will do my best to clarify.

Programming: NLP is a kind of programming. That is clear by the title. People want to know what kind of programming it is. It is a way to program the mind. There are many NLP sources that state this as a matter of fact and it is indeed an accurate description. NLP also uses the computer metaphor throughout. eg; Hypnotherapy. A kind of therapy using hypnosis. Psychotherapy. A kind of therapy using psychology. HeadleyDown 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mental-health-matters.com "Programming refers, not to the activity of programming, but to the study of the thinking and behavioural patterns or 'programmes' which people use in their daily lives. The name is a bit of a mouthful and is certainly not NLP's strongest asset. By trying to be too comprehensive it has ended up being somewhat off-putting and most people feel a little uncomfortable about the 'programming' part of the name when they first encounter NLP." Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, Seymour and O'Connor all state the same. I think that a vague "it programs the mind" is not appropriate. It's misleading because "programming" has POV asociations, and misleading again because each source clarifies that is not what "programming" refers to. FT2 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Programming is neutral enough. Looks to be very clear and the opening works fine that way. HeadleyDown 07:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Any reference to results of NLP in testing should be very concisely summarised. There are a great many other statements that are far more relevant to Sharpley's kind words about the use of many pseudosciences in psychotherapy. Another paper concluding that NLP was ineffective actually stated that dianetics is also ineffective, but is still used in fringe practices. Regards HeadleyDown 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Which means little. The intro has one point of view. The other point or something similar is appropriate to balance that. Your problem with stating that at least one researcher concludes that lab tests may not reflect real life tests is.....?

Note that as I said, I'll come back to that characterization later. this one's purely about deletion of a balancing verifiable credible sourced view from the intro that leaves the only views in that paragraph as "against". FT2 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No FT2, the paragraph is a neutral scientific statement of fact. I do have a solution though. It does not concern the opening, but I do have a source that states that many pseudosciences are promoted in psychotherapy, especially concerning fringe practices. Its a fair and factual statement. I will see how it fits. Cheers HeadleyDown 07:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified the intro yet again...:-).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza}07:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that, VoiceOfAll, though it is not as immediately clarifying as the previous. I do suggest a couple of word changes. Notice that "the study of structure of subjective etc" is considered an outrageous claim by more than a few scientists, and rather than belief about structure, it is more of an assumption. I will make the changes, see how it looks to you. Regards HeadleyDown 07:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I made more changes, and programming is still mentioned, it seems quite clear for now.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 07:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. I made some small adjustments also. Cheers HeadleyDown 08:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the intro is acceptable.JPLogan 09:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Headley, I see that the Mediator's view is not quite to be left alone as you have previously said. You just can't resist those little POV pushing touches, can you...

• VofA "It is promoted by NLP proponents as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" "

HD edit It is promoted by NLP proponents as "the structure of magic" and claimed to be "the study of the structure of subjective experience"

• VofA "NLP also provides techniques for programming the mind, so that such models can be used by others to emulate effective skills"

HD edit: NLP also provides techniques for programming one's own behavior or other people's behavior.

• VofA "It is formally defined"

HD It is promoted

• VofA "is predicated upon the belief"

FT2. I am willing to compromise here. I made some corrections to the opening, and I corrected myself also. I stated promoted as ..study of structure etc, but it was rather a claim than a promotion, so I placed NLP's most common promotion (structure of magic...the word magic is in the title of many books). HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot I placed the McDermott reference (not shown above) HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on these points. I see no problem here as I am more interested in completing this part and moving to the next. HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could hear VoiceOfAll's version. HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We did. You instantly edited it, and the above lists your impact on it. A bit inappropriate to then talk about "hearing VofA's version"....? FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "Qualified NLP practitioners claim to be able to do more complex NLP change work"

HD Qualified NLP practitioners claim to be able to do more complex NLP change work (Eisner 2000). Although NLP is pseudoscientific [STRAW MAN AND PRESUPPOSITION ALERT!], it is fair to say that many pseudoscientific subjects are promoted in psychotherapy, especially the fringe psychotheraputic practices

FT2. OK, I am being fair and compromising here. I can change it to Although NLP is classed by some experts as pseudoscientific....HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "in the eyes of many people"

HD in the eyes of previous supporters

FT2. Voice of all asked for the removal of "many" and I was cooperating. Si see no problem with my version and if you look up the reference, you will find it is correct. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see the benefit of removing weasel words. But "previous supporters" also implies all or most previous supporters, which is incorrect as opposed to merely unsecified. Can you find a citation to describe who exactly lost faith in it, or something? FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• HD Richard Bandler attempted legal action to claim the intellectual and commercial property of NLP although and as NLP did not work [and this relates to court how exactly?]

FT2. Again, that is actually a direct reference to the book by Salerno. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, its nothing to do with the court case. if it is relevant to the article, find a place that it fits the article context. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "other reported states and abilities"

HD other dubious activities

My version fits well HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited to retain both, see if that works FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "medical use"

HD "alternative" medicine

It's classed as alternative medicine sometimes. Certainly I don't see it being taught to doctors as part of their training. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It also gets medical use. Both is okay, deletion of that fact in favor of alternative, isn't. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA " 'New age' or 'commercialized' NLP is increasingly targeted for saleability"

HD NLP is increasingly targeted for saleability

Reverted. Don't even think of POV warring this way. FT2 11:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, FT2, it does seem like you are telling me what to do. I have been cooperative. If you want to make changes do not simply revert. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2, these are all valid changes. I made those changes for the sake of the remaining issues to clear up. Please be more specific about your objections, because I see nothing wrong with them. HeadleyDown 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

See way above, you asked if I was telling you what to do. When it comes to content in general, no, all sides must be represented. When it comes to comprehension and clear persistent and aggressive boundary pushing on core wikipedia policies such as NPOV, yes. Specific criticisms are given above in each case, read 'em, or ask for a re-post of them, either is okay. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have re-reverted the deletion of the Sharpley quote. I find it interesting that it's okay to include Sharpley's criticism, but not the other half of his research conclusion, and that it's okay to include 3 sources heavily critical without one research that isn't. I also find it interesting that you ask for explanation, and I tell you where it is and offer to repost it if you can't find it, but then you still don't actually discuss, but instead revert to the one-sided version again without discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It tries to be collaborative, but not at the cost of excessively non-neutral articles.

Some thoughts from WP:NPOV about the nature of NPOV:

• "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page"
• "not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct"
• "We accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that 'human knowledge' includes all different significant theories on all different topics"
• "we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly"
• "a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call 'knowledge'."
• "Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness)"
• "It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views"
• " It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." [emphasis aded]

On biased editing:

• "an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse"
• "There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view."
• "a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used."
• I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with? --> "This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says... It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included...This can be a particularly touchy subject"
• "The term Weaselspeak refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged". While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias" Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
• "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

And last:

One further point should be borne in mind. Our best contributors should not have to waste huge amounts of their time handholding people who are clueless, ignorant, or have an ideological ax to grind; if some of the latter people constantly post nearly worthless stuff, and do not react to polite and reasonable criticism, they and their writing shouldn't expect to be treated nicely. MediaWiki: Understanding Bias (linked from WP:NPOV FT2 13:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. You have just committed a serious offense in your personal attack. But in response, I am going to point out in as polite a way possible your biases.

Your approach to NLP has been one of posting your own POV on the page (your own perceptions of what you think are inconsistencies), and your own claims that you think NLP is really powerful (yes you said that despite the strong evidence of NLP's ineffectiveness), and you have placed a section of speculation from a paper (1987) on the opening in order to negate a recent finding (post 2000). I suggest you are biased:) I will look for remedies for this, but considering I have made multiple compromises today and I cannot see any from you so far, I am going to continue to compromise by reverting to the position of compromise agreed under mediation. HeadleyDown 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But you feel that the paper is significant enough to support the post 2000 research. If Heap's work is worth citing, it's worth citing in a balanced manner. Your "compromise" has still not brought neutrality to the article, though it's closer (although in the main, not through your efforts). Both sides need representing. If the article was too NLP-pro and didn't characterize criticisms fairly, I'd add them myself too. But I'd do it by describing both fairly, not by misrepresenting or under-representing one. FT2 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just counted, for example, how many separate times the article mentions that Eisner called NLP pseudoscience or similar. Its about 6 repetitions so far - including the one you just added. My question is, is Heap still considered a quality comentator on NLP? If he is, then both quotes are valid. If not, then neither are reliable or both should have their flaws described by whoever critiqued him. FT2 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. No, I have been here long enough to have read extremely deeply into all of the papers and books and I have most of the papers right here on my desk, so I know if people are misrepresenting the facts (eg by snipping bits out of paragraphs without quoting the negative finding at the end:). The latter references quote Sharpley correctly because, like myself, they actually do research professionally. Their representation of Sharpley is that NLP is unsupported. They quote other review papers that say NLP is pseudoscientific in theory, pseudoscientific in association of principles, and of course ineffective in experiment and practice. All the latter scientists who do overall reviews say the same. They also state many other reasons why NLP is pseudoscience. Now most people know that there are pseudosciences used within psychotherapy, but they don't like it. People blame NLP, and they blame the way it is promoted by the main developers. To state that NLP is unsupported and therefore has been classed as pseudoscientific is really very neutral. Regards HeadleyDown 15:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. The section of Sharpley's article you present below is unrepresentative of Sharpley. Not only have you misrepresented his overall tone, but you have taken a small section of an argument that he presents in the paper to support your desire to promote NLP. Now, as you very well know, Sharpley concluded at the end of the paragraph you have partially represented, that NLP had been relegated.

At the end of the paper, Sharpley says that the research does not in any way support the ridiculous claims of NLP.

He put it in negative terms. Not only that but the statement that you present is higly inconclusive and totally unfit for an encyclopedia. He uses words like, may, perhaps, etc. He makes a statement about psychoanalysis being hard to test. But as you know, he believes the tenets of NLP to be perfectly testable. If you wish to take a word out of a critical paper such as "good" and state that Smith thinks NLP is good, when in fact Smith said that NLP is good for nothing, then you have misrepresented that article. JPLogan 01:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You have the papers? That helps. So please check.... did Sharpley say, or did he not say, ""There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures suggested by NLP have failed to be supported by those data. Perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field."". Is that, or is that not, a made-up quote? Never mind what you think he means. Are those, or are those not, words he says? FT2 18:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. FT2, I just looked up what my academic writer's manual says about your type of attribution. They call it "intellectual fraud". Oh dear! HeadleyDown 02:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about Headley, FT2. I actually like you; I think fanatics are hillarious. DaveRight 02:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version as of now looks quite good[34]. Still the word "calibration" was useful, as it suggest that your mind can be recalibrated, which lead into "programming". The connection between NLP and progamming in the intro is a bit weak though.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again VoiceOfAll. I added your suggestions to the intro (calibration and programing). Tell us what you think. Regards HeadleyDown 02:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VoiceOfAll. I will see what I can do about the programing relationship. Regards HeadleyDown 00:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting improvements to the opening, just had a quick look. My main queries are

1. Calibration is described/used incorrectly (you don't recalibrate your mind, calibration is part of understanding non-verbal communication from someone).
2. I'm interested in clearly showing NLP vs applications, and they still merge a bit (though if the rest of the article is clear then that's fine)
3. There's still this thing from British Psych Society classifying NLP as quintessential charlantary - surely the BPS sources we've shown demonstrate this to be bogus. I gave multiple references of the BPS working with NLP [35] [36], and FT2's link at BPS is also great [37].

Such blatant misrepresentation is common from a couple of editors, who when given multiple pieces of contrary evidence don't withdraw the claim, but simply look for some other source to make their point. Of course ignoring evidence and just rewording a claim, finding anecdotal quotes to support what is said should not come from us editors. This is where my understanding of wikipedia's NPOV and science preference differs from those editors. Anyway, I'll keep reading, my quick look has whet my appetite to catch up (tomorrow!). GregA 10:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Representing the article properly in the opening

Hello. I noticed that the opening really did not represent the article as a whole. So I added another paragraph in order to represent the article properly. I think more critique can be added. We have 3 large paragraphs giving NLP its say, but had only one little concise one saying what the scientists say. I added one for the critics. Regards HeadleyDown 14:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup! I agree. The opening is totally skewed towards promotion of NLP, and not much has been stated about the criticisms. It could be a lot clearer there. Now I have noticed on many other articles that the opening is stated properly (there is a statement about what the article presents, and then there is a qualifier from critics etc. The NLP article opening needs rebalancing to include a lot more criticism in order to make it represent the article properly. DaveRight 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Basic Tenets

Hello. Yes they are used all the time and are in the new books and editions on NLP. They are also used as the tests have tested them in the research. Here is evidence:

a. NLP coach uses the eye diagram lead/preferred/primaryRS, and says that people can be primarily one or the other also. The NLP Coach: A Comprehensive Guide to Personal Well-being and Professional Success Ian McDermott, Wendy Jago

b. Molden. Managing with the Power of NLP / eye diagram lead/preferred/primaryRS, and has a lot of information on preferred 1996

c. Dilts Bandler Metastates in A User Manual for the Brain Vol 2 2000 page 270 Diagram placing PRS as core to NLP. This puts prs and rs at the core of NLP in the recent model.

I was taught the primary representation system recently and it is still used in modeling according to my trainers (Grinder trainers). Sincerely. HansAntel 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

PRS seems fine to me right now(I made a few edits).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rep systems are certainly taught in both the old and new books and trainings on NLP. I've had no time for a bit (and still have little), but we have to make clear the difference between Rep Systems, Primary Rep Systems, and Preferred Rep Systems - at the moment all 3 seem to be being used synonymously. By separating that we can also show changes to how Preferred RS is taught. I'll have a look at the main article perhaps you've already sorted that out? Oh, HansAntel - what does Molden say about preferred rep systems? GregA 10:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Could use more clarity, some POV remains, to much use of "many".

This one looks to me to be resolved after Headley's editing. What do you think VoiceOfAll? Regards JPLogan 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP Applications

Had some POV, could use minor style rewordings.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 03:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has added a few NLP Applications. While I applaud the introduction of the multiple serious fields in which NLP is being applied, I think it's worth separating out the broader contexts (eg Therapy/Coaching/Self development) from specific organisations (eg FBI, Mental Health orgs). I don't know how to do that at this point... but I think it's worthwhile. Any comments (agree/disagree) and/or ideas on how to do that? GregA 11:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits Nov 7

• We don't need to name all five senses in the intro - space waste, and people will know what "the senses" are.
• "Tenet" means "An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true" (dictionary.com). I would have thought that "experience is subjective" and similar were far more fundamental than the left-right hemisphere theory if we're discussing "basic" tenets. The tenet behind the left/right brain and eye movements, is essentially, that body language can be observed. if someone else can sharpen this section, please do so, it still needs cleanup.
• NLP is widely used and credible by reputable bodies, as previously stated (and removed incorrectly). That is factual. So I've added it back.
• The BPS (whatever Parker may have reported) do not lend support to the statement "NLP is charlatanery". That is factual, so I have added it.
• Reorganize Engrams to explain first, note that dianetics use differs second, and continue with NLP use third. Previous order was less helpful. No information deleted, engram paragraph made more encyclopaedic in style.
• NLP derived models are widely used - factual. Noted in "modeling" section.
• Eye accessing is a simple model, they get far more complex.
• It is considered to be a powerful persuasion tool, the citations (like most other sections) omit this. Noted.
• Removed "As NLP claims tend to include exaggeration, and have been proven to be ineffective in experiments, it is seen as unethical to use NLP for financial gain", please provide citation. Who considers this, and what is their basis of credibility? It sounds like editors own feeling.
• Add back 2 valid looking links previously deleted.

If there is doubt please discuss here, rather than fully and indiscriminately reverting, since the above are believed factual, credibly supported, and relevant to balance the present viewpoint. FT2 13:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Modeling

I've tried to pull this into Wikipedia standard form, without loss or slanting of information.

There is already an article at Modeling (NLP), I have first, merged all the information in this section into that article, so that it is there for other readers. Secondly, I have then updated the main NLP article to give an overview based upon that article's introduction and criticisms section, which explains modeling, overviews it, and reports criticisms of it. Third, I have linked to the full article as backup.

The "wide uses" referred to include for example - models of anger, used in health services for anger management, sports modeling, advocacy modeling used by lawyers, interview modeling used by law enforcement, spelling and teaching models used in education, and so on.

The test of the success of this is, would someone reading it, feel they know what NLP modeling is (in overview), and its criticisms (again in overview). They can then check the related article for detail.

FT2 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Presently the NLP modelling page is full of hype and exagerated claims. I wonder why you didn't notice:) That will change soon enough. Regards HeadleyDown 00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

american cancer society

the american cancer society has some info about NLP.

there have been no large-scale randomized clinical trials of the method. One small-scale study found that NLP might be effective in treating phobias. However, a National Research Council committee did not find the theories or practices of NLP to be well founded. Indeed, some studies have found that eye movement is not a consistent marker of type of mental processing. This appears to contradict the observations of the NLP founders.

Several reviews of the literature have reported there is little or no evidence to support the effectiveness of NLP. A survey of 139 psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology found that the soundness of NLP was questionable. More scientific research is needed to determine if NLP may help any medical or psychological condition.

FuelWagon 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are asking practitioners to start putting NLP through clinical tests themselves. Certainly psychology scientists are not going to do it considering the pseudoscientific theories and poor pre-clinical results. Refs can be provided. Regards HeadleyDown 00:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

It claims it is 'The only professional organisation for psychotherapists and counsellors using Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP).

The link is here. FuelWagon 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NLPtCA is a Member Organisation of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). This umbrella organisation seeks to agree national standards across the whole range of approaches to psychotherapy and counselling.

NLPtCA is the UK's only recognized professional body for NLP therapeutic use, under (but independent from) the ANLP, the UK's national NLP body. The UKCP is the accredited top-level UK body for therapies such as psychotherapy, CBT and hypnotherapy. FT2 20:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this puts NLP within psychotherapy in perspective to some extent. Remember that CBT etc are hugely represented within psychotherapy compared to NLP. The NLPtca is about the only organization that has any standards at all. The UKCP really wants to keep them under scrutiny (I mean make sure they behave themselves). Anyway, just remember how little weight this assoc carries:) Not trying to diss the assoc here, just read the literature and you will see that NLP is mostly the wild west. Regards HeadleyDown 00:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I've finally got a day off :)

What do you mean that the NLPtCA is the only organisation with any standards? - they are certainly one of the few groups promoting official therapeutic standards. Don't you recognise all of ecology a "standard"?.

And what do you mean they carry little weight? This is a group that psychotherapists accept. Of course they are only an application of NLP - they endorse ANLP trainings, plus the requirements for applying NLP into therapeutic fields, they're pretty clearly focussed on the therapeutic application of NLP, and recognised. Sorry Headley just not getting your claim GregA 10:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Its just a simple question of weight, Greg. Placing a huge paragraph in the opening section that seems to imply that NLP is an entirely respectable set of psychotherapists is quite ridiculous. Also, associating the group with other unconnected associations is also akin to a lie. HeadleyDown 12:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, that wasn't what you said though. This discussion section hadn't mentioned the opening section so I'm not sure why you bring that up (maybe yesterday it was in the opening?). Now, in fact, NLPtCA is not mentioned AT ALL in the article, not even in the psychotherapy section - which it is an ideal reference for. You may also notice that the NLPtCA does not accept just any NLP practitioner, they must conform to ANLP guidelines and the guidlines for UK psychotherapists (2 separate requirements for separate fields)- and it is fine to reflect that generic NLP training teaches NLP, and doesn't claim to teach psychotherapy, or coaching etc (though some trainings teach to those standards and may even teach with specific applications in mind, I guess) GregA 12:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Sure, that was the problem. Promoters keep putting junk in the opening that wasn't even represented in the main body. Its a pretty sure sign that people are fanatical. Just a pointer on bias! HeadleyDown 13:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

scientists

The word "scientists" is a bit... odd to describe the critics of NLP. Do these people have specific job titles? FuelWagon 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, Maybe they can be called quantitative (statistical) researchers? See "The Qualitative Report, Volume 1, Number 4, Fall, 1992" for an opposing view that supports Grinder & Bandler's qualitative approach. --Comaze 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Going for another reframe?:) OK, let me explain. Bandler and Grinder are pulling another fast one. They are making the author believe that they are conducting real qualitative research (As if!). What the author doesn't realise is that qualitative also has to be rigorous. It also has to be peer reviewed by independent peers who do not have vested interests and are not likely to say "Yes! You can learn to walk on water using NLP":) Or "Yes. Using NLP a guruworshiping idiot who likes to read cretinous self help pseudoscience can be Eistein if they wiggle their eyes about in just the right direction". Bandler and Grinder have not done science within NLP. Promoters do continue to call them scientists. Fanatics call Bandler "Dr Bandler" and he does not own a medical certificate or PhD. NLP has certainly not earned the title "science". But it has earned the title "pseudoscience". Note that there are research studies in all kinds of subjects that are qualitative, interpretive etc and are not pseudoscience. From what I have read about the researchers of NLP who call it pseudoscience, they have all conducted qualitative studies, and have conducted lab studies, clinical studies, and field studies in an empirical way. Bandler and Grinder have conducted coke sniffing parties at Esalen in order to further their financial interests in NLP:) Their well deserved charlatan/pseudoscientist/shaman label is well deserved. Cheers DaveRight 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In case there was some confusion, and there seems to be some confustion here, I was talking about this sentence: "scientists such as Eisner, (2000); Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004); Williams et al (2000), Drenth (2003)". What is Eisner's credentials for criticizing NLP? Is he a therapist? a psychologist? What? "Scientist" is simply too vague to say he qualifies as someone who gets to criticize NLP. FuelWagon 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. From what I have read they are all slightly different types of scientist. I suppose you could write "a clinical psychotherapist with degrees in psychology and a doctorate in psychology, a psychologist and researcher of psychology as used in psychotherapy and editor of the Scientific Review of Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy (a large body of therapists and psychologists who have classed NLP as pseudoscience), and a practicing psychotherapist and professor of psychology, and another large body of psychologist doctorates who class NLP as pseudoscience, and a psycholinguist with a phd in psychology. But I think that would be a bit long. They are all scientists so I would class them as such. I reckon all 100+ or so of them would be a representative sample by any statistical measure, and they all say NLP is pseudoscience. Best regard Bookmain 06:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is amazing how many scientist do actually class NLP as pseudoscience. Last time I counted there were a whole lot of researchers/scientists/psych practitioners who categorize NLP as pseudoscience. Judging by the amount of obscurantist writing, exaggeration, refusal to accept science (because it indicates NLP is fraudulent) and the complete lack of research advancement going on to back up wild claims (because it will further prove NLP is fraudulent), I think it is simply going to get more pseudo. I would still recommend the cult/religion idea for NLP. Church of NLP. It works for Hubbard and Tom! Regards DaveRight 09:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's a little clarifying and I agree too much a mouthful to write the way you've written it Bookmain. However, saying "scientists say" would imply that all scientists say this, and that is misleading. Then again, it'd be just as misleading to say "psychologists view NLP as a pseudoscience" - though you've got a few good sources that some do. GregA 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Rapport (interpersonal rapport)

Ok, I've added a reference about teaching rapport (NLP) skills, which is currently not represented in this document. This is probably the most well-known NLP model. I want to add it to the goals section. This article (Clabby 2004) is published in two medical teaching journals [38] and [39]. There are also hundreds of book references on the subject of rapport that cite Bandler & Grinder. --Comaze 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead Comaze. I have some wicked research on that one also. But keep it concise. The scientific conclusion is pretty abrupt and aptly put:) DaveRight 02:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Rapport is the first skill taught in NLP practitioner training and is essential in any change work. What are the other views on rapport (NLP)? --Comaze 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Energy

In this edit [40] . After checking the sources for Bandler and Grinder, they do not refer to 'psychic energy' only 'energy' -- as in collateral energy (Bateson 1972) -- it is powered by metabolism. I added the page numbers so you can check this yourself. This is a necessary distinction to resolve some ambiguity. --Comaze 13:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to add this sentance to the Energy section (last paragraph). "A notable exception is John Grinder (1986) agree who is intolerant of the uncritical importation of fuzzy concepts of energy into the discussion of thinking and language, this is in line with Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979)." --Comaze 13:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Firstly what does Grinder quote about energy? And are there any comments that he makes to qualify this? ie, I am sure I read him talking of psychic energy somewhere:) I only have to look through my notes. HeadleyDown 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not realise how similar my writing was to the original text such that I will need to rephrase it. There is a quote on p.167 of Structure (1975a) about the use of fantasy in gestalt therapy. In some other books Grinder refers to "time and energy" (p.34 Frogs 1979) or "ënergy and creativity" (Grinder & Bandler 1975a p.13). At least in two later cases Grinder is referring to collateral energy (Bateson 1972, 1979), the type of energy powered by breakfast, metabolism, not the cosmic or santa cruzian 'new age' type of cosmic energy (p.53 Grinder & Delozier 1986). Grinder agrees with Bateson (Turtles, Grinder & Delozier 1986 p.xvi) stating he [Bateson] was "quite intolerant of the fuzzy kind of thinking characteristic of the uncritical importation into discussions of mind of the physical phenomenon of energy." There are many other quotes that exclude psychic energy from NLP epistemology (see epistemology sections of Whispering 2001, and Patterns 1977). Just check the index of Steps of Ecology of Mind or Angels Fear by Bateson for many more quotes criticism New Age/fuzzy/psychic/cosmic/force energy, and Bateson's criticism of psychology (especially Freud) for inappropriately introducing energy into discussions of the mind and language. See also, collateral energy as part of Bateson's Criteria of Mind (Bateson 1979, pp.85,86; [Malloy, Grinder, Bostic 2005 page.13 (PDF) http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf]) --Comaze 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. Can you provide a Grinder quote that says psychic energy is not something that NLP espouses (or something like that)? Otherwise, Grinder's view is irellevant. It certainly does not negate the use of psychic energy within NLP. HeadleyDown 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I can provide many references. Firstly, can we agree that psychic "energy" reading is an example of the skill known as cold reading? Here is my proposed section [41]--Comaze 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. I am not familiar with that term. I am talking about energy as has been explained within NLP books. You seem to be trying to talk about something else. HeadleyDown 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown. I am talking directly about cold reading and psychic energy (or anything else psychic, mystical or fuzzy) and criticising the NLP trainers who use this dodgy concept. Check the article on cold reading, http://skepdic.com/coldread.html -- you have quoted this author (Carroll) many times. There 133,000 results on google for NLP+"cold reading" -- this is significant. Compare it to your NLP+engram (~200 results). Here we go, a direct quote from your favourite author, "At the same time, much of what NLP is teaching is how to do cold reading. This is valuable, but an art not a science, and should be used with caution." http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html --Comaze 02:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yo Comaze. I had to do some more resoring of facts that you deleted. You want to delete any facts that put NLP within the new age category. NLP is now used mainly throughout new age practices. It is really flakey. New age, occult, bogus religions, more neopagan witchdoctors. I have no problem with them using NLP, or practicing what they want. It's their life and their belief. All the best to them. But you seem to have a problem with that. You seem determined to reduce the viewpoints to a Grinder only view. That is against NPOV policy. Cheers DaveRight 03:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In the merge you lost alot of important distinction, including confusing collateral energy with psychic energy. We need to keep these distinct. You also removed all the information that exaplins psychic/fuzzy/energy as simply cold reading eg. "At the same time, much of what NLP is teaching is how to do cold reading. This is valuable, but an art not a science, and should be used with caution." http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html --Comaze 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, Proper Representation in the Opening

Hello all. I think its fair to say that people are getting a little crazy with organization and weight here.

Firstly, NLP is a pseudoscience and science gets priority and greater weight.

Secondly, the most sensible and intuitive flow is 1State what NLP claims(the map), and 2 State what science and critics say about NLP (the reality) (because science is overwhelmingly critical of NLP).

So please realise how accommodating neutral editors are being here, when NLP gets a huge say in the opening, then there is some (smaller) criticism. It is completely fanatical of people to paste strategically snipped and intellectually fraudulent stuff afterwards (one small part of Sharpley's argument that concluded that NLP had been ditched. The scientific conclusion is negative. Full stop! HeadleyDown 13:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, as I've said before, you are clearly lacking understanding of your proposed subject, unaware of the balance of opinion both scientific and otherwise, and your sources are often cited in a selective and partisan manner that results in the exclusion of critical caveats they themselves deliberately wrote in.

Neutrality matters above any individual point of view. Your edits and comments are often somewhat one-sided, whereas mine are fairly universally sourced from an appropriate source (or a relevant note or invitation to discuss posted on the talk page if in doubt). That's the difference. FT2 14:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I have compromised with you on far too much already. It is far more reasonable to represent the criticism more fully within the opening. I am fairly representing the opening by being brief. Your so called critical caveat is one part of a single study that reads as a positive conclusion. As you know, the passage you have presented states that NLP maybe could possibly be thought of as being like psychoanalysis. Then it says that if there is anything that could be tested and it fails, then it relegates the field. So NLP has been relegated (it is worse than psychoanalysis). The other conclusion is that NLP claims are scientifically unsupported.

In addition to that. NLP is criticised by a great many other researchers after this 1987 paper. The are within various fields such as business studies, training, psychotherapy, psychology, and so on, and they all say that Sharpley says that NLP is ineffective, unsupported etc. That is their view, not mine. I will represent the views of scientists and critics exactly how they are represented in the literature. You are a complete fanatic who will look for any reason to promote NLP back into the outlandishly exaggerated nonsense that it is.

Also, pseudoscience is used widely. This is a criticism of pseudoscience. People criticise NLP for being part of this problem. NLP is promoted in some business sectors, and of course people fall for the hype. Business writers also state how pseudoscientific NLP is. That will be represented. Pseudosciences are used in therapy. That is criticised. That will be represented.

So, FT2. You are presenting a completely twisted view.

The literature that I have on these matters is very broad and deep. Now, either you start realising exactly how reasonable the non fanatical editors are, or science will indeed be represented with far more weight than the pseudoscince that you are promoting. HeadleyDown 15:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

PS.... OK, FT2. Now here is a solution. If you can find literature that states "Sharpley says NLP is lovely, just like psychoanalysis", then that passage is fine. However, so far, the only lit that I have quotes "Sharpley says NLP is ineffective, perfectly testable and pseudoscientific, and scientifically unsupported". Actually Sharpley is quoted for saying NLP is a cult, fad, ridiculously promoted, dubious, etc. HeadleyDown 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your wording "Sharpley says NLP is lovely" is an exaggeration, which I have no need to meet. What I have said is, Sharpley presents a balanced view, and you are selectively representing him. It's not for you to choose that his "side #1" was what he "really" means and his side #2 is somehow not something he meant. The WP:NPOV point is, represent sources in a balanced fashion. I don't know what Sharpley thinks, personally. Nor do you. What we do jointly know is he saw fit to write both that it is scientifically unsupported at present, and also that it has strong clinical support and this doesn't mean its by any means worthless. Sharpley chose to write that, not you, not I. Both of those were in his article, it's important to present his balanced view.

Yes, FT2. I know Sharpley doesn't say its lovely. You have no way of getting a the overview of science that says NLP is lovely. It doesn't exist. You are not presenting a balanced view. He stated that if it is testable and fails, then it is relegated. Of course it was tested, and it failed. You deliberately missed that point out. YOU are deliberately misrepresenting Sharpley. Plus you have not referred to how other people see Sharpley's conclusion. You have once again taken your own POV and pulled your favourite bit out (and out of context) in order to promote NLP. You are behaving in a fanatical manner. Your edit will simply get reverted. HeadleyDown 16:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I also note that you have removed the note about BPS, although clearly BPS do not subscribe to Parker's view, and the note about NLP's wide use, although this is well known too (or would be if you had researched it as suggested). If you can find current evidence that BPS consider NLP "quackery" or support Parker's representation of their view, please cite it, because as best I can see - and I've cited sources which you have not rebutted - they don't.

FT2. Again, the note, was your view, but it is not the view of any cited source. Parker was clearly represented, and is valid. HeadleyDown 16:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to familiarize yourself with the suggested addition to WP:NPOV by User:NPOVenforcer, at Wikipedia:POV_selective_fact_suppression. He mentions 3 behaviors that count: selective citing, deletion of rationale for your views if weak, and deleting opposing ideas when credible.

• Your citation of Sharpley is the first of those,
• Your selection of only negative research (and only the most negative citations from it), such as ignoring comments such as Druckman's ("Studies of the effectiveness of NLP are limited in a number of ways [...] None of the studies testing aspects of NLP has used NLP-certified Trainers as counselors, therapists, or eye movement monitors") that would expose the weakness of your stance is the second,
• Your deletion of the fact that BPS themselves don't support your representation of their view is the third.

This is why I am reverting your edit (again). It is slanted, and misrepresentative of your own chosen sources. FT2 16:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Your citation of Sharpley is fraudulent. You have decided to present only the parts you like and cut the lower and more negative conclusion off of the quote.

The overview of every scientist who quoted Sharpley says that Sharpley found that NLP's effectiveness and claimed principles were scientifically unsupported. Sharpleys CONCLUSION was that:

"CERTAINLY research data do not support the rather extreme claims that the proponents of NLP have made as the the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures". (Sharpley 1987).

That CAN be represented because that is Sharpley's conclusion. HeadleyDown 16:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But do you notice, I'm the one citing sources (BPS, sharpley) ... you're saying "that doesn't matter". I didn't "cut off" anything as you claim, rather I have *added* the information you are omitting. The issue is not what others quoted. Its what Sharpley himself said. He said 3 things. NLP is unsuppported by science, has extreme claims, but is strongly supported in the field in a manner similar to psychotherapy. We agree about the extreme claims by some NLP folks. BUT it does not excuse not representing the rest correctly. It also doesn't answer my other points - the BPS do *not* support the stated view and it is wrong to represent them as doing so, and NLP is widely used and considered as useful by a wide range of credible 3rd parties. Thats fact. Again.

I'd like to avoid multiple revertion, but until you actually read, understand and consider all sources and both viewpoints, as I and others have, you are going to see slanted, and edit slanted and that won't be okay on this site. Wikipedia is not a means of advocacy, Headley, or a place for saying "I withdrew some incorrect facts so other misrepresentative information should be allowed to stay". Its a place facts and knowledge are represented neutrally, and the article at present doesnt. You need to stop, read WP:NPOV and fix them, or others will. FT2 17:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. Do you actually believe what you say? I rather doubt it. You have not been editing this article long enough to find all the refs. In general it is wise to conclude with the latest information and talk of how people came to that conclusion.

Your method seems to involve making a conclusion, then stating only the positive parts of the arguments that led to the conclusion. Its like saying: If you fly an airliner into the World Trade Center you will kill a lot of innocent people. BUT if you are following your religious rituals to the rule, then it is perfecly fine and you will have the support of God and all righteous persons and will certainly go to heaven.

Perhaps you should go to work on the terrorism article! DaveRight 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, if you'd checked, I did. My contribution to it was the suggestion that as "terrorist" is subjective depending whose side you are on, some major authors deprecate the term in favor of "militant", and a citation. [42] That was in January 2005. I'd say you are precogniscant, except it seems quite clear that this was intended as sarcasm and a personal remark. There you go. As I keep saying on this page, check your facts next time, before editing, and don't talk about your knowledge until you have considered both sides... especially if it seems others are trying hard to tell you that you don't know it all after all. They may just be right. FT2 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. You censored the bottom of the paragraph for the sake of fanatical promotion. You are biased. YOU told me that you think NLP is extremely powerful. The SCIENCE goes against that. You persist in posting your own POV on the article. YOU have not read the research. You seem to care nothing for history. NLP has plummeted to pseudoscientific status since it has failed to provide evidence for efficacy since the 80s.

You present Sharpley as if he thinks NLP is just like psychoanalysis. He actually states that it is relegated to QUESTIONABLE status in terms of professional accountability. (clearly because NLP proponents make wild claims that fail to be even normally effective). Psychoanalysis proponents do not make wild claims about giving people orgasms just by talking, or learning photographic memory etc.

The one line with the greatest certainty is the one I provided for you in the opening. It is the line that the other researchers refer to when they talk of NLP's pseudoscientific status. HeadleyDown 17:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. I think I know what's going on here. It seems that FT2 has not much actual information on NLP testing and has only one negative paper on NLP and wants to screw as much positive out of it to promote his darling NLP. OK, now here is the sequence of statements in the text to help all other people clarify what Comaze, um I mean FT2 is trying to do.

1. The results of Sharpley's paper show that NLP is unsupported by data. 2. Sharpley discusses. (note that in a discussion session you use lots of perpapses, maybes, mays etc because you are being speculative) 3 During his speculative discussion he says that NLP is unsupported. 4 Then he says that Einspruch MAY be right about difficulties in testing 5 Then he says that IF that is so NLP MAY be in the same category as psychoanalysis 6 Then he says BUT......If it is tested and fails, then it is relegated (relegated means that it drops in the eyes of scientist. NLP has fallen. Dumped etc

8 Sharpley concludes (just as in the quote presented by Headley) that CERTAINLY, NLP is unsupported by the scientific data.

Sharpley does not say NLP is unsupported BUT it is just like psychoanalysis. He says that NLP would be like psychoanalysis, BUT it has failed in tests.

Now we all know that Comaze, um I mean FT2 is completely fanatical about NLP. The latest up to date (current) information on the scientific testing of NLP shows very clearly that it is scientifically unsupported. The views of scientists (not just Sharpley but other more recently published writers (not 20 years ago)) are that NLP is pseudoscientific because it is unsupported, because NLP pseudos like to twist the findings after the fact, because NLP pseudos use even more obscurantisms etc.

Since the dawning of the Internet wild west, and the mass sale of snakeoil, NLP has seriously fallen down to negative cultic levels in the eyes of scientists and psychotherapists.

The present opening is very mild. If you want to keep pushing it, Comaze, I mean FT2, then you will find it suddenly becoming far more balanced towards science and away from skewed pseudoscience. JPLogan 01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean JP. Now that we know that FT2 is a confirmed Tony Robbins acolyte, we can do something about it. I suggest reversion of each one of his edits until he provides several corroborating references for each of his statements (none of the references should be his own POV).

In most cases, I either supplied neutral citations, or offered to. Its not possible to make you check them, but the information was there. FT2 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I reckon the opening needs a bit more representation of science. I'll do the honours. Regards DaveRight 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Round and round we go, huh?

Oh, I loved Headley's line "You have no way of getting a the overview of science that says NLP is lovely. It doesn't exist."...

I would hope no science says something is "lovely". Lets try it out... "Quantum Physics is Lovely"... "Psychology is Lovely"... nah... just doesn't fit :-), not from a science perspective anyway GregA 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:DaveRight: "Hello FT2. Do you actually believe what you say? I rather doubt it. You have not been editing this article long enough to find all the refs. In general it is wise to conclude with the latest information and talk of how people came to that conclusion."

User:HeadleyDown: "It seems that FT2 has not much actual information on NLP testing and has only one negative paper on NLP and wants to screw as much positive out of it to promote his darling NLP. OK, now here is the sequence of statements in the text to help all other people clarify what Comaze, um I mean FT2 is trying to do."

FT2. You are wrong again. You took the above statements (strategically altered to remove the damning evidence against you) from JP's reply. Its JP, not Headley. Please quote without twisting facts. AliceDeGrey 05:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from being quite my own person, and not connected with anyone else here, I've also been aware of scientific research into NLP since I first started checking it out about 1989, and I've been an editor on this article for about 18 months now. Which like most information I have cited, was available to you if you had cared to check. You'll notice I haven't removed the sections on hype and excess, because they're fairly accurate. That doesn't mean that inaccurate perception is okay though. Thats the difference between us. I've added extra information to balance opposing views, you have both deleted opposing views. I've reinforced that the subject has hype, you have both removed that it also has a significant degree of scientific and field support. I've added definitions that are text-book, you (at least Headley) have deleted those in favor of self-written ones.

Wrong again, FT2. I noticed that the definitions you refer to are actually the ones that VoiceOfAll presented. NLP is really deliberately confusing (in order to get people to by something they assume is science). Good encyclopedic writing will use brief and clear definitions or descriptions that the reader will understand. You seem to be advocating the wholesale use of psychobabble. Its quite funny, but shouldn't be presented in openings. If you want to make people giggle, you could place that kind of obscrure nonsense in the criticism section. DaveRight 09:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave, take it a notch up. How can you say NLP is _deliberately_ confusing, and also make up motivations for being confusing? (and then mix another science stab in there!) Yes Good writing will use brief and clear definitions unfortunately the article is neither brief nor clear, your efforts to portray NLP as something it's not confuses the article. NLP terms (which will often be unknown to the reader) need to be defined in plain English using the definitions supplied by NLP. GregA 09:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For example, would you care to explain why Sharpley's words that NLP is unsupported are useful, but his words in the same paper that it is strongly supported by clinicians, are not? Would you like to explain the apparent selective citation pointed out (and avoided) above, that Druckman's comment about outdated metaphors and factual errors is included but his other quote that most NLP studies are limited and subject to criticism for design error, is not?

Would you care to explain why Sharpley's words - like psychoanalysis - are useful but the conclusion (NLP is relegated from psychoanalysis)? I know its useful for you, because you want to promote NLP. But its pretty useless for people who want to know what Sharpley thinks. "OK Sharpley, what is your conclusion!?" "NLP is a fad" "Oh!". The Druckman "Outdated metaphors" thing is also the view of other recent reviews. The "NLP study limitations" part is not important because every study of any scientific rigor will include sections that talk of limitations, and they always mention that there are limitations. It is scientific convention. Of course, the Druckman study did not include the Sharpley 1987 study refuting Einspruchs claims and providing further evidence and research for NLP's scientific failures. But why am I explaining all this stuff? If you had been around here for the past 18 months you would have read this answer about 5 times over already. DaveRight 09:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My answer to you both is, I'm a lot more aware than most. I'm also a skeptic by nature on most things, so I check all sources, not just favor those that support one side. My question to the two of you is esentially the same. Would you like to state how broadly you think NLP is used and the research that has been done on it that suggests it's credible? Some of your reviewers seem uninformed, and it seems you both may be unaware too. FT2 04:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and which scientific sources state that "There is an inconsistency between critics who claim NLP is ineffective and those who think it is a dangerously powerful cult technique?" Oh, it was you! Where did you publish that finding? The NLP creative writing journal for the promotion of psuedoscience? DaveRight 09:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed the point Dave - some sources say NLP is ineffective. Others that it is powerful. Do you see the contradiction? GregA 09:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats interesting Greg. So if I were to post that little bit of vague nonsense on the article, would I cite you or FT2? DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you were being intelligent about it, you would quote "NLP is powerful" from the cult books that talk about how dangerously powerful NLP is, and "NLP is ineffective" from the skeptics dictionary and "science vs pseudoscience" books that say there is no evidence. Spoon fed :) GregA 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I say FT2! You really are very naughty! I just checked the Sharpley 87 ref again and he did conclude from his argument that NLP was relegated down from psychoanalysis. Whats more, you claim to be neutral! Not only is you behaviour very naughty, but it is by far the silliest behaviour of all the NLP promoters here. I understand you feel extremely miserable about NLP being sci unsupported pseudoscience. But you found the article, saw that there was a positive line or two within the paragraph and said to yourself:

"Mmm! That conclusion is painfully negative, but if I shave it off, then NLP looks like clinical psychology again!".

You should know that people are going to notice and place the actual conclusion as they actually are in fact. You should also realise that it will lead to more damning detail being presented in order to show exactly how warped and desperate your biased edits are. People here are actually trying to be kind. I have some extremely crushing reviews from Europe and I havn't yet found a way to present them without NLP looking like mass marketed devilry.

Now lets have no more naughty silliness from FT2 or any of the other NLP promoters. Regards AliceDeGrey 05:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alice. Setting aside the condescending manner, would you like to address my final question directly:- Would you like to state how broadly you think NLP is used and comment on the research that has been done on it that suggests it's plausible or credible? Thanks. FT2 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I can give you my research. You remember how Heap mentioned in 1988 that if NLP does not stand up to scrutiny or presents evidence of its efficacy etc, then the verdict will be damning indeed? Well I will present his damning words on the article. I think that is what you are asking for. Bookmain 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. Personally I see NLP as harmless lunacy. Its just a kind of 70s throwback that includes a bunch of ineffective rituals that make it look like magic. But thats just my view. Others state that it is dangerous, against consumer protection, fraudulent, encourages manipulation, etc. I am not that bothered about fighting pseudoscience and superstition because I personally believe that people do have a responsibility to see snakeoil salesmen coming. I do have a problem with trying to promote it above science though. I think NLP is not broadly used as a therapy. It is more of a Scientology for people who cannot afford Scientology. The science says NLP is not at all credible. I agree wholeheartedly with the scientists who call NLP a daft fad. AliceDeGrey 07:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again FT2. I'm a true nature's child, I was born to be mild. I think NLP is radical. Radically twisted. I have noticed quite a lot of promotion on wikipedia and I find it personally insulting. I have stuck around here due to the high density:) of NLP promoters who would probably paste:

"NLP is defined as the difference that makes the difference, and is a scientifically supported rapid behaviour change method decades ahead of the current state of psychotherapy that will help YOU to ATTAIN EXCELLENCE. It is scientifically defined as THE empirical study of the magical structure of your own excellently subjective experiences. NOW, it was developed by two extremely talented psychotherapists by metamodeling and as you HOLD ONTO THAT IDEA, you will DISCOVER FOR YOURSELF amazing wonder in your OWN UNLIMITED POWER to become whatever you want to be, beyond what you ever previously thought. Currently figures of excellence such as presidents, heads of state, geniuses and a great many other great minds have stated that it is important to BUY INTO NLP to attain even greater success, and COMMIT to NLP to solve your every problem. NLP is the healthy option for rapid increase in excellence and a way to AVOID ANTI NLP THINKING. Some miserable critics have dismissed NLP with limited knowledge and totally failed to test NLP for themselves. To MOVE BEYOND NEGATIVE THINKING, NLP has been empirically proven through multiple observations of accredited practitioners to be by far the most powerful technologies of excellence available to you. NOW, here are some links to my commercial site...."

Anyway, I think you catch my drift. I have seen a lot of hype, and part of it comes from you. DaveRight 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What a joke Dave. I don't know how you've mixed yourself up enough to think anyone here would write something like that? GregA 09:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave, same thing. I was on this article long, long before you were, and before the present approach was. Did you ever see that kind of approach in it? No, and for a good reason, it's a slant too. I'm not interested in slanted articles. Do not set up ideas what someone or other might do, that they have no intention of. Its called a straw man and its rather disapproved of on Wikipedia.

Meantime can I have some direct answers from each of you to the question which everyone seems to be trying to hope if they engage in personal attack and personal remarks, they won't be noticed to be avoiding: "Would you like to state how broadly you think NLP is used and comment on the research that has been done on it that suggests it's plausible or credible? I assume that people can answer this. Thanks. FT2 09:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg/FT2 (definitely not sockpuppets of each other, you make slightly different mistakes, FT2's being the funniest). Of course I'm exaggerating. But only to make a point. NLP promoters did write "the difference that makes the difference" and so on, and are extremely stubborn when it came to removing those kind of promotions. I have a question for FT2; Do you think Sharpley writes in a straw man kind of way? If so, I think you need to consider looking in the mirror again. In continued response to your enquiry about the research; I see absolutely no reason to consider the positive side of a negative result. This is an encyclopedia, and the concise result will be used. Otherwise, you will end up supersizing the article. I noticed since FT2's mass changes to the article, it has actually more than doubled in size. When Comaze and the other self interested NLP promoters were working on their seperate hype page, the article suddenly got down to wiki recommended size. I get the impression that the NLP promoters have spent a lot of time trying to work their own little excuses into the article with absolutely no regard for concision. But then again, I also find it quite entertaining, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much. DaveRight 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Very mature. I agree the article is too long. I think that without any agreement on how to represent NLP it will get that way. The "separate" article also got much shorter when the anti-group weren't around.

Now, "the difference that makes the difference" is a description for modeling, when teaching someone to perform an effective pattern, you only teach the important bits. Yes the sentence rhymes... but why would that be a reason to remove something? GregA 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. there are many reasons to include both sides of a result - the main one being that it's an important scientific concept for presenting evidence. GregA

Hello FT2. The one thing consistent with NLP lovers is that they are constantly accusing people of not answering questions. Its as if they do not understand anything. It is blatantly clear what our opinions are. I am a scientist and I believe in and understand science. It is the most independent and neutral force within the advancement of knowledge. There are other bodies of knowledge that I have great respect for. Research in general is an excellent activity. Especially if it is rigorous and thorough. NLP is not broadly used. There was interest in NLP from therapists in the beginning, but it dwindled because therapists adhere to science to a fairly good level. The empirical research conducted on NLP is rigorous and credible and it will clarify things well for this article. I intend to represent the most neutral empirical knowledge that we have access to, and represent the most independent views on what that means. There is nothing more to say about it. If you want to ask questions, you know you will probably get answers. If you start hyping NLP above science then you will be told you are wrong by me or probably by someone else. If you vandalise or post unreasonable comments then you will probably be told not to. It is simple wikipedia process. I believe quite strongly in it and it seems to be working. Mediation suits me (because I believe mediators are about as neutral as me, and because they generally adhere to wikipedia's scientific bias). Arbitration is fine also, though it really is a very long way off, and as far as I can tell we have been moving in the opposite direction (towards stability). If that does not satisfy your question, feel free to ask further or more specifically. HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. I do not see anyone avoiding this question. I do see you trying to avoid people from noticing that you have been selectively editing whilst accusing others of that crime. As I said, NLP is not broadly used in psychotherapy, and the initial enthusiasm resulted in a lot of dumping after the original claims were found to be false. The research is correct citable and credible. The research is very useful for determining how well NLP works. So far, it really doesn't work, and it completely fails to live up to the claims of the originators. I am quite satisfied with that. Exactly how much do you dispise the facts, and how would you like to cover them up? AliceDeGrey 11:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I notice your desire to accuse. You seem to have Comaze's approach to attack and then accuse others of doing it to you. I can only say that your actions on the weekend were completely against compromise, against constructive editing and against the facts. I work in a large research library, and I walk past the psychology section each day. There are some big glossy books there. There are few self help books but the big glossy books there are entitled such like; NLP the science and technology of achievement, and Dianetics, the science and technology of achievement. I go to look up the scientific findings on NLP and I see the same pattern. I think NLP is just as powerful as dianetics. It is not effective although it promises effectiveness in anything you like. Dianetics is used in cults, the same as NLP. Not effective, but used in cults. No discrepancy there. I think that NLP is only really used by fringe practices, and sold in self help for desperate people. The science shows that NLP is the same as Dianetics. Theoretically nonsense, and ineffective. Now what were you going to say about your burning desire to promote NLP and relegate science? Bookmain 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask you, bookmain, for an answer rather than "waffle". You have given your opinion of NLP. You have given your reading in the library. You have stated that so far as you are aware it's only used by fringe practices and sold in self-help for desperate people. But I also asked a very different question too, namely, what is your awareness or comment on researches that suggests it is not (or there are reservations about whether it is) mere pseudoscience? Are you aware of any, if so what is your view of them? As you can see, this is not "accusation". It's an attempt once more to get direct answers and thus try to establish a better sense of common agreed ground. FT2 15:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(For clarification, I mean by that, a short, non-vague, precise and direct answer to the question from the editors concerned, such as HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Bookmain, and DaveRight)

Short answer. Not broadly used, and the science is plausible, credible, and useful. HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, please, read carefully at least. This is what I call "avoiding the question". I asked one question, you answered a different question of your own preference that I did not ask. Specifically, I asked you to "comment on the research that has been done on it that suggests it's plausible or credible". You replied that the research you wanted to focus on was credible... which is great, but your reply completely ignored the actual question *I* asked. It'd help if you could answer it, please. That way I will not have to ask so many times. Thank you. FT2 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Thank you for specifying your question more carefully as I requested. The prior empirical studies that show some small positive results have been explained as such (little evidence for efficacy). The empirical evidence that points to NLP being wrong is often entitled such as "Eye accessing cues: A statistical anomaly" or something like that. The reason being, the cues, nods, winks etc of NLP are deceptive. They are neither here nor there. They give no particular signal as to what people are thinking, how they are thinking, or what part of the brain they are using etc. It is similar to the research on mirroring. One of the most telling experiments was conducted on subjects who were told how mirroring works, and comparing with subjects who were not told. Mirroring was conducted, and the people who were told of it's effect beforehand were mightilly impressed and found the mirrorer very persuasive (subjective measures). The people who were not warned of mirroring found no difference between parrots and normal communicators. Furthermore, the theory behind what was tested is pseudoscience anyway. As you know, the overview gives a negative result. That is useful. Taking the "little positive" studies on their own really is just like you snipping a little positive section out of a critique, minus the negative conclusion. Regards HeadleyDown 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If the history of this discussion has demonstrated anything, it's the pointlessness of trying to engage Headleydown and his ridiculous sock-puppets in a constructive dialogue. lets just get to arbitration a.s.a.p. The guy clearly has nothing better to do than be a self-appointed pedant and a time-waster. Why bother talking to him at all, I bet you all can guess his standard responses and evasions by now - talking to him clearly achieves nothing in terms of moving towards a fairer and more representative article Faxx 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is funny also, Faxx. When I came to this article, I was welcomed by Comaze. He pasted a sockpuppet label on my site. I decided to keep it and have posted an explanation. Now, again, I would actually love to go through a bit of arbitration. I have buckets of negative press to chuck on the NLP article. Notice how I have not actually added them? What does that suggest to you? Does it mean that I am a really nice fair minded chap, or does it mean that I simply want to keep the article as neutral and encyclopedic as poss? DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To Dave Right. Oh really then you must have some really positive stuff on NLP too Mr Right. Please indulge with both. Justin. Please answer?

Hello Faxx. Perhaps you could take up your problem with the mediator:) HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Faxx - just for my own peace of mind, could you confirm you are a new editor, and not a "sock puppet"? It's just so I have your word on it :) it avoids stress all round, to check, on a heated article like this. That aside, welcome. FT2 15:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. You state that you have been around for a long time, but you didn't notice that Faxx has added comment here already? I think that you should care more about what people have posted, and be more cooperative with them, and stop trying to add your own opinion to the article. DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"New" is 4 weeks old and very few edits (4 at the time), all on this article or its related article engram. It might be a good idea to avoid the apparent appearance of "scoring points" by critiquing a reasonable enquiry that any experienced wikipedia editor might make, couched in courteous terms, especially given that there have been allegations of sock-puppetry in the past here. FT2 06:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Don't be too worried about the sockpuppet thing. Except for VoicOfAll, the neutrally minded long term editors have all had sockpuppet labels posted on their own articles, sometimes several times, never with supporting evidence, and sometimes with vandalism to their own statements or resumes and so on by NLP promoters. So it really is quite easy to identify the neutral editors. I havn't noticed any particular vandalism or accusations to the NLP promoter articles. However, TBP seems to be a self confessed sockpuppet and has supported your views very consistently (but then again all the NLP fanatics follow closely to your own fanatical edits and views). So the sockpuppet allegations/admissions are really very clear. NLP promoters see neutral and they post sockpuppet, neutral editors generally laugh it off as the desperate slurs of terminally unconvincing NLP promoters. Regards DaveRight 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Second posting - does that count as new? More a voyeur than an editor really. Comment stands, no point in talking to this guy IMHO Faxx 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Faxx, there is an Arbitration Committee vote at the top of this page. You may not have seen it. If you feel strongly, perhaps you ought to consider adding your feelings to it. Arbitration is a final resort on Wikipedia for disputes that seem to show no reasonable prospect of other resolution. There is a vote section, and a comment section. TBP 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 has already moved for arbitration not long ago. There were votes although I did not participate due to not really participating in the editing. I've just been reading the endlesly recycling discussion. Nothing will get done this way. HeadleyDown obviously has nothing better to do with his time than pursue his crusade Faxx 11:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Faxx. If wikipedia policy and process is the crusade, then I'm all for it. I seem to have a lot of support for it, including from the mediator VoiceOfAll. Regards HeadleyDown 12:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Faxx. It is not entirely unconstructive. Each cycle involves NLP fanatics moaning about not liking the facts, so the neutral editors go and find more facts to satisfy the complaints. More facts means a better and more solid article. One way to stop the cycle is to stop moaning about the facts. That would also make for a very stable article. If the NLP fanatics were canny enough, they would have stopped moaning a couple of months ago, and we wouldn't have had to expose such detailed negative fact about NLP. It really is a case of - the deeper you dig, the dirtier it gets.HeadleyDown 12:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, what a totally unanticipated response Faxx 13:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV diff

After being away for a couple days, I return to find the criticisim of NLP to be in complete violation of NPOV. You cannot report someone's opinion about NLP as if it were fact. If their opinion of NLP is in dispute with the opinion held by NLP folks, then you must report the view as a view. Please take a look at this diff that fixes a number of basic NPOV violations. Learn the difference. FuelWagon 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my! Why such animosity to Headley? I thought I was the bluntly truthful one! I have just been reading the NPOV article about not holding back on writing about objectionable stuff. I think I have more writing to do!

In the meantime, I would like to direct ALL NLP promoters to the wiki policy on no personal attacks. Looks to me like NLP promoters are winning the personal attack competition hands down. Actually, one solution to this would be to follow NLP writer and promoter Andy Bradbury's example and just go and vandalize the poor old HeadleyDown article page instead.DaveRight 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Dave Right glad you are on board- However Headley Down presupposes we are "Fanatics" Not true and if veiled references are made through his writings it is made clear what he thinks of NLP and it's users and also his use of the Wikipedia which is quite extensive comnpared to my own of the subject, that he is non supportive of the concept, has not looked into positive reviews and has ignored facts to it's testimony. I personally have not made changes to the article and intend not to, I do however expect a responsibility to the article to be NPOV. A derogatory comment as NLP practitioners being involved in this article as being "fanatics" is an understatement compared to the level of his own involvement in the article.

O.K. heres one for you. Anthony Robbins was one of the top students of NLP when it began. However his methods were considerred by many in the NLP community to be cowboy in nature. Cowboy is the term given to those therapists who operate if not all the time then sometimes without the clients consent. It is widely taught in NLP schools he is a cowboy. However Richard Bandler the NLP co-creator in his book Persuasion Engineering written many years later in his thanks to people who he considerred genius' he cited Anthony Robbins as one of these genius'. So which way is it? Is Anthony a Cowboy or a Genius?

Justin. Under the circumstances, fan or fanatic is a mild term. Considering the rotten behavior of NLP promoters here, I believe the fanatic label is completely justified. It shows the level of bias very accurately. Remember that NLP promoters wanted to erase the fact that NLP is categorized as new age (even by NLP marketeers, and even though NLP is technically and anthropologically new age), and remember that NLP promoters wanted to remove the spirit and energy sections that are part of NLP and stated within the literature. NLP promoters here want to remove those facts in order to give the false impression that NLP is somehow reputable or broadley accepted as a respected subject of psychology or psychotherapy. In fact NLP is simply a dubious and ritualistic fringe treatment, just like EMDR, primal scream therapy, or energy/power therapies with some shamanism thrown in. NLP's biggest claim to fame is perfect NLP marriage promoter and divorcee Tony Robbins and firewalking. Bandler (the diet coach and obese shaman guru) comes far down the list of NLP fame in most people's view.

Not true. NLP and they are not promoters they are staying true to form, will not say that which is NLP which is not. Such as the comparison to Dianetics. Only such an unatuned mind would make such a distinction. Well Hell. You're right then. So lets change the name of the article. We'll call it "Dianetics". Oh but that's already taken. We better tell them to move out cos we want that name. O.K. then "Dianetics two" although I doubt we'll get Travolta to make a movie about it. No, NLP is quite different. It's not new age although it was created quite recently. I really dismiss all admissions of the term New age as being a tool to say a subject is propaganda to both generalise whole fields and dismiss them.

Promoters want to place NLP on the same level as the pseudoscientific subject of psychoanalysis, even though it has been scientifically demoted down from psychoanalysis.

What fine distinctions has Psychoanlayisis made that could not be made with NLP in psychoanalysis were that useful it would be promoted as useful by NLP Practitioners and then used. NLP moves far beyond that one Miss DeGrey. If you follow that NLP makes use of all useful models. On another note NLP moves away from analysis which requires one to look at each individual part and moves toward systems thinking which requires to see how parts fit together as a whole in a working system, as stated by Joseph O'connor in "the art of Systems thinking" this detracts from your comment of psycho ANALYSIS also as a NLPer becomes atuned as to how you work as a whole and not from some seperated part. please tell me there is more to this cos I know there is more to NLP. Good Day

Notice that NLP promoters will use as many references to "excellence, great minds, and high performers" when if fact all the developers do is read a few biographies and make it up as they go along (no way of judging if the models are correct) and NLP developers are totally unexcellent in providing rigorous theories and tests to support NLP.

Not true. as a communications tool the new NLPer fledgling starts to question as to how to aquire results. Fine distinctions are made without the aid of biographies. However the option to model someone from a Book is not closed.

Promoters want to quote "the study of the structure of subjective experience" but that in itself is a wild claim (NLPers do not study such things on the whole - they just do a bunch of rituals that some pseudoscientist claims will work for them). NLP should be defined as "claiming to know the structure of subjective experience and applying it as a universal panacea".

Rituals: MMM I could have fun with that. Doctors in our medical centres and hospitals do that study and then undergo ritualistic behaviour to heal. They even congregate in huge buildings that herald their profession and cite the hipocratic oath. So really what is a ritual? and what is a Cult? Clarity of what you mean will mean the world to me. and not only that it's practical.

If promoters spend months trying to remove facts, and trying to put hype into the article, whilst repeatedly stating that neutral editors "do not understand NLP" even though neutral editors have provided the article with solid rigorous scientific evidence, then fanatic is a great word for the promoters here. Since editing here, I am coming far more to the conclusion that NLP really is a kind of self-delusion inducing cult.

Facts: Like NLP is a CULT, Like NLP is exactly like Dianetics, Like NLP deals with engrams. None of these are mentioned in NLP literature

Headley seems to be biased towards science. I am admittedly becoming more biased towards science. Wikipedia is also biased towards science. Its the best way to keep the pseudoscience of NLP in order. AliceDeGrey 05:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice: the sentence "NLP is a cult" is not a "fact", it's an opinion. It sounds as if you don't know much about Dianetics either, or are relying on others, for that other comment "NLP is exactly like Dianetics". Where on earth did you get those ideas? There is a huge difference between something that any person can observe and which has significant scientific and field testing by credible third parties (even if you are unaware or have not cared to research it neutrally), and the church of scientology. And that other quote which shows you profoundly do not understand Wikipedia WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is also biased towards science". Wikipedia does NOT have a bias in the sense you mean it.I'll ask you the same as I have asked others. Do you actually know just how much research has been done on NLP? Do you know how widespread its use by credible serious bodies is, that do *not* view it as "pseudioscience" but say they have tried it and it's proven itself a powerful tool "in the field" in their experience? Why have you not checked these things rather than just taking what you read as gospel, before opining on an article you clearly don't know a whole side of? Please, won;t you actually do some research of your own. FT2 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're really funny FT2. Take a look into literature about cults, fringe therapies, dubious therapies etc. They place dianetics and NLP in the same category. Sorry, but you are well in there in both philosophy and practice. DaveRight 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is a Science isn't the only claim NLP developers have made and I think you are missing the point. Good day. Oh and by the way have you never stopped yourself from seeing a movie because of bad reviews and then yourself given it bad reviews even though you've never seen it? Is that questionable?

Justin, you are presuming too much. You presume that I havn't tried NLP, you presume that neutral (non pronlp) editors have not been accredited in NLP training, and you seem to make out that NLP is some kind of higher order knowledge. NLP is promoted as being extremely accessible. Anyone can have a go. Of course if you know psychology, you are not going to be conned by the NLP pseudoscientists. If you are going to make comments or edits, I suggest you read through this discussion and archives properly, and you look up all the NLP references that mention spirit, spirituality, engrams, past life experiences and so on. There has been a lot of research presented, and you have demonstrated that you have not even tried to read it. AliceDeGrey 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No I have not said it is a higher order of knowledge only it is different as one person is to the next. And what of psychology do you make that it ranks higher than distinctions made by NLP. they too are different in form and context so what makes it any less valid. As for books on "past life experiences" you read books at your own peril and a writer does not represent the industry as a whole. Even spirituality is discussed in a matter in which it may be. NLPers are encouraged to try new models to see what they do and where they go. You do not have to follow a NLPer to the ends of the earth. This is called independance a bi product of NLP teachings. As for engrams which relates to memory NLP institutes refer memory change methods as submodalities. So what I can't understand (and I do agree that I have not read much on engrams) is that why is emphasis put on engrams when the emphasis in NLP is on submodalities. And even then who has written about engrams and in what context was it made. To tell you the truth one does not need to know about engrams to make radical memory changes please tell me it's relevance or how it takes the field forward. Submodalities suit just fine it does no more nor no less than what it is supposed to do. And even as an idea or a construct of ways of determining memory do not take for granted that engrams is not of a similar ilk.

Thats very interesing Justin:) Submodalities (an obscurantism in itself) is a pseudoscientific concept that is mixed up with attractive but erroneous brain myths that you will read about in any self help manual that doesn't use science. "Do what works" is something borrowed straight from dianetics, as is "the science and technology of achievement". Its really silly to be driving yourself deeper into pseudoscience territory by even mentioning such things as if they are wisdom.

I never said it was wise. I said it was there and is widely used in NLP teachings. please who is presuming Miss DeGrey.Justin

Submodalities are about as convincing as spirit therapy or phrenology. I dread to think of how many people have been put to death based on such nonsense as eye accessing cues or their submodalities. That kind of pseudoscience it totally unhelpful. Its mostly just silly, but after reading accounts of what goes on with these "therapies" I have to say, its actually quite worrying also. AliceDeGrey 07:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Really but to deny it's (submodalites) importance within NLP and it's students in this article would be ignorance. Do you know what a submodality is? and even then how it is used or I should say they are used. RE:"the science and technology of achievement" yes NLP borrows from other cultures religions and psychologies not because NLP or it's originators want to be them but because they work toward action toward a result. Justin

OK Justin. So you like pseudoscience. I am not keen. NLP likes to take scientific sounding words but no NLPer is willing to test NLP properly. And they still talk of Bandler and Grinder as if they are scientists. NLP is the archetypal source for psychobabble. NLP promoters make claims, and these are tested. They fail. In a way NLP works quite well. Not to help people, but to sell pseudoscientific books for getting people to repeat buy in order to buy more of the same junk because it is unsatisfying. To me, that looks like they are making people desperately insecure, and then never coming up with the goods. That is unethical. AliceDeGrey 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are they selling the books too. NLP practitioners who have done the course and know how to program therefore knowing what to do with them. But reaaly they're aimed at uneducated fools who wanna buy the first book on psychology that they see. Isn't that right Alice. LMAO. What righteous trash that is. They're not marketted that way. They are marketted to people who are already practicing. I dont consider NLP a pseudoscience. Always with scientists they wanna pidgeon hole something give it a name and stick it in a corner NLP eludes that. So try as you might it will not be labelled. Alice you're not NPOV. I make no claim to edit but to shape it. You dont learn NLP from books you learn it from a NLP trainer or practitioner that should be stated. The trance induced by such beings might have something to do with that.

Look you have said that NLPers on this article have complained that you need to know NLP to understand it. Have you ever turned around for more answers and just said enlighten me? Alice?

Justin. You can look for enlightenment in many ways. But this encyclopedia will enlighten using facts, not just made up stories. Have a look at the literature. Don't just take my word for it. AliceDeGrey 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of today’s NLP teachings

The profession of medicine is just a ritual, holding your head downwards is a clear sign of clinical depression, new age is propaganda, NLP is about short quick powerful ideas for preventing boredom, science isn’t the only claim NLP has made, you read books at your own peril, NLP took language as far as psychobabble, NLP books are marketed to people already practicing NLP, NLP cannot be labeled, you can’t learn NLP from books and must pay for a trainer, NLPers do not get divorced and have long serving jobs, and Anthony Robbins is a genius. Mmm interesting set of assertions! I’ve heard this kind of thing from the likes of Greg, Andy Bradbury, Comaze, FT2 and others. Dull wanker is a new one on me though. I’ll bear that in mind next time I edit. HeadleyDown 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow you're really that NPOV? Justin

MMMM to be taken out of context. These are comparisons that bring up the ridiculous comparisons and likenesses you have come up with for NLP in your "research" Headley and partly some are jokes. However we must know that such things as cults once did not exist so really the concept iis created by man meaning man created a whole way to class specific groups with one word. a negative word. Fanatic can also be taken negatively and I see no difference of fanaticism in my stance in defending the subject and your stance to detract from it. I dont mock the medical profession I mock what you consider ritual to be. I never said NLP was exactly for preventing boredom though it can be done. NLP has more claims than just claiming to be a science a fact you must admit and or write about. The truth is that comment means when you read something you believe it at your own peril. I thought you knew that already about life. No I actually said it took the language beyond psycho babble, Maybe I should have said took it toward a workable model. Largely NLP is marketted that way I believe. Many people I talk to dont know what NLP is. So interest is not exactly thrust in it's direction from non NLPers looking for self help books. I think they'd prefer Doctor Phil who is more high profile. Yeah it can be labelled but who in NLP wants to do that unless it's useful. Yeah a trainer will make all the difference in NLP training. Please tell me you learnt it cold from a book. That would be amazing. Please tell me how did you do it? Yes NLPers can enjoy richer relationships and in most cases keep productive where employment is concerned was the point and also a jibe at yourself. Didn't say Anthony Robbins was a Genius. There was a comparison of opinion about him where you could go either way. Something not achieved in this article. and yes looking down does not mean that you are clinically depressed. Justin

Hello Justin. NLP does not have to claim to be a science in order to be a pseudoscience. There are people who claim it, including developers, although a pseudoscience is simply; "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation" (Oxford Dictionary). Of course this will apply more strongly to subjects that try to appear scientific in order to dupe unsuspecting consumers. And it will apply even more harshly to subjects that have been tested and found to fail, and where promoters just make lame excuses and carry on with their head in the sand, or with their mind on your wallet. Actually, trying to be generous, you sometimes give the impression that you are still largely unsuspecting. Regards DaveRight 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You know upon my first training and modeling my life to the expectancy of what I would like for myself money was furthest from my mind and still is. If you follow film literature and you're own example that money is not the root of happiness and is infact materialistic then it is fair to assume that NLPers also follow a similar vein of thought and more so if it is a part of their personal psychology it is soon remedied with deeper meanings in life and the behaviours we use to fulfill intention. A lot of people know money will not fulfill and a NLPers questioning of his own inner purpose would contradict that money will bring happiness as well. I don't think of money when I do a job or NLP with someone. I dont even charge, that's just me though others will because NLP has become their profession. I'm more interested what I can do outside of NLP in terms of actually applying it in different fields. Your argument about money is weak and holds no bearing on the situation at hand I hope you do not use such justifications when writing an article on the Wikipedia after all: How do you know that money is a primary interest of people publishing their work and then wanting it to be sold? I do not argue that NLP is not pseudoscience you guys brought that one up all on your own. However upon looking it up there is a section that talks about how it is interpreted, usually negative. See all these words you use. Cult, Pseudoscience, Shamanism, Rituals, New Age etc.. to generalise a field, whilst NLP has some traits in common with these it does not posess all traits therefore the words you use are too general to use and misleading into areas that are not explored by core NLP or NLP foundations. However there is a huge section which I have consistently refferred to in this article that has multiple views on how NLP is dubious, unscientifically proven, shamanistic and so forth that misrepresent the field with examples of individuals rather than as a whole. maybe there should be other sections to different schools of thought on NLP rather than lumping them all together. I didn't say that for NLP to be a pseudoscience it has to claim to be a science. Please don't put words in my mouth it's awful dreadful and frightenning. If someone hadn't seen what I wrote earlier they might presume this is true. Justin

Back to Basics

The preceding discussion seems to me to be meandering and becoming increasingly further removed from the original matters of concern. NPOV -- in this context can be achieved -- by stating the claims of NLP practitioners, eg. "Bandler claims...', 'Grinder claims...', 'Baffa claims...' and by emphasing that there is little in the way of evidence -- i.e. obtained using well-accepted and well-proven research and review methods -- to support these claims and that where studies have been conducted they have largely found against NLP's efficacy. On a theoretical level, NLP's implicit theoretrical statements about neurology, psycholinguistics, linguistics and cognition are outdated and derived from the 1970s when NLP was being formulated. NLP's theoretical underpinnings are largely a "snap shot" of neurological and linguistic theory of the 1970s.

The article states the above, to that extent it is NPOV.

Anecdote counts for little -- using anecdote we can "prove" anything eg. "if you smoke and drink heavily you'll live to 90 years of age" -- and NLP proponents seek to justify NLP with reference largely to anecdote. Whether the anecdote is personal or in the form of a "case study" is immaterial both are unreliable as evidence.

All of the healings and behavioural changes attributed to NLP can be just as well attributed to non-specific factors of the "treatment" (i.e. the placebo effect). In the absence of blinded and controlled studies we can just as well conclude that Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved not by a brilliant execution of the "Fast Phobia Cure" but merely by the non-specific factors of the "null" treatment i.e. patient expectation, patient belief regarding treatment and patient-therapist trust. The significance of non-specific factors is well researched and well-understood (see http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060001a.html, http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060006c.html#c1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect).

The purpose of controlled and blinded studies is to determine whether treatment X is more effective than placebo (and to a lesser extent to determine the magnitude of non-specific factors in a treatment). If a treatment has not been subject to this kind of examination then there is no reason to assume that anything other than non-specific factors are in effect when that treatment is applied.

The only recent form of psychotherapy that has demonstrated value -- i.e. better than placebo -- is Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. That is to say, CBT has been demonstrated to possess more efficacy than would be expected if only non-specific factors were in effect.

Further, modern medicine's (including psychology and psychiatry's) appreciation of non-specific factors in treatment is demonstrative that the medical profession (research and clinical) acknowledges that the mind (more specifically the meaning ascribed to an encounter) powerfully influences the outcome of a medical encounter. Non-specific factors and their influence on the outcome of a treatment are ever-present and unavoidable: they are present when any medical practitioner prescribes a drug, they are present when the witchdoctor spills the blood of a chicken, they are present when the shaman utters an incantation, they are present when Bandler asks his wide-eyed volunteer to "roll the anxiety in the other direction" in an NHR session, and they are present when a Reiki practitioner lays their hands. The vital difference between the medical practitioner and the others is that medical practitioners intervention brings more than non-specific factors, the drug trials which preceded the drugs introduction assure us of this, i.e. there are specific attributes of the drug which exert a beneficial physiological effect. The point is that NLP has not been demonstrated to be anything more than a delivery mechanism for non-specific factors. This is entirely consistent with the anecdotes regarding NLPs efficacy. flavius 06:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius. There is more to it than that though. The anecdotes are mixed with principles that have been found to be scientifically unsupported. Robbins talks of psychology, as do others including Dilts, who also talks about neuroscience. In addition to this, anecdotes by doctors and psychotherapists are generally not wild claims. A large percentage of NLP uses wild claims, in both its principle hypotheses and its marketing push. Put simply, the views of scientists are that they have tested NLP and it does not measure up. It is a pseudoscientific subject for many reasons. Therefore, the anecdotes regarding NLP's efficacy are criticised for being totally wild, and they do not even measure up to normal standards. CBT does have good support (and certainly does not suffer from exaggerated claims) though there are far more therapies that have gained scientific support. Regards AliceDeGrey 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If the underlying principles are unsound then it is to be expected that the method will lack efficacy and vice-versa. Certainly the anecdotes of medical practioners and psychotherpists are generally not as intemperate as those of NLP trainers and practitioners but they are, nevertheless, merely anecdotes and consequently prove nothing. Anecdotal evidence remains anecdotal evidence irrespective of its source. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points all, flavius. There is one significant piece of missing information. There is substantial research that has tested NLP, either in its principles, or in the field, that has repeatedly concluded it can be effective when tested with an appropriately designed test or in a clinical context. As you will recall, the major criticism of many researches has been, that the tests were poorly designed, or that NLP needed to be tested in its own context. As best I can tell, there is now significant evidence that this is the case and has been done. Additionally, whilst anecdotal evidence by paractitioners is correctly identified as a source of bias, and must be examined carefully for the placebo effect which is the immediate suspect in many new techniques, anecdotal evidence should not be dismissed when it becomes of a serious scale, and likely not to merely be the placebo effect. NLP is widely used in many non-NLP contexts, where it is reported positively by credible sources. For these reasons I have suggested that it is inaccurate to state that NLP is unsupported, or dismissed, because it is clear that it is valued in the field by credible non-NLP organisations and mixed results in scientific testing, and at the same time, some others consider it highly dubious. That sounds like a pretty classic Wikipedia "present both views and the evidence". That's why I am at a loss why this article is being so heated and controversial. FT2 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are studies that demonstrate the efficacy of NLP then please cite them so that we can review them and judge for ourselves. AFAIK there are no such studies but I am prepared to be demonstrated wrong. There are some troublesome phrases in your response. What does it mean to say that "NLP need[s] to be tested in its own context"? Also, where is this "significant evidence" that you allude to? You can't examine anecdotal evidence "for the placebo effect". In the absence of a controlled and blinded research design you can assume that non-specific factors influenced any positive outcome, that is why anecdote has little evidentiary value. According to what epistemological principle is it that "anecdotal evidence should not be dismissed when it becomes of a serious scale"? Given the universality of the placebo effect it is to be expected that it will manifest on a "serious scale". It would be remarkable if a treatment -- the efficacy of which is entirely derived from non-specific factors -- did not show this effect in numerous encounters. The prevalence of an outcome does not -- it can not -- demonstrate that the outcome is not explicable in terms of non-specific factors. Only a controlled and blinded research design can do this. The putative authority of sources or the (subjective) valuation of NLP by "credible non-NLP organisations" is entirely irrelevant in terms of demonstrating that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo. What is in dispute -- and what is yet to be demonstrated by any credible research -- is not whether an NLP intervention has any positive effect. We know that literally anything that has therapeutic meaning associated with it can produce a positive outcome. The point in dispute -- which is vitally important -- is that it is yet to be demonstrated that an NLP intervention has a positive effect beyond that produced by a placebo. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. You are at a loss. The reason your edits get reverted is because you keep posting selective edits. The conclusion of science is that NLP has been tested and it is scientifically unsupported. Some writers go further and speak in more lay terms, stating that NLP has proven to be ineffective. Not only do scientists come to this conclusion, but commander in chief's of the US armed forces and their supporting boards of advisors do also. Einspruch is the only writer to claim that some of the tests were incorrect. This was refuted by Sharpley (with further empirical evidence), and all the later scientists concur with Sharpley, and go further to talk of what happened after the 1980s - ie the internet boom and all the nonsense that surrounds NLP. They talk of intellectual fraud, pseudoscience, and mass marketed psychobabble, Tony Robbins, etc. As mentioned earlier today, NLP is fringe. It is tiny compared to the empirically supported field of CBT, and insignificant compared to all the other therapies.

I suspect that this impasse stems from a misunderstanding of non-specific factors and the role of research design in isolating these from the specific factors of the intervention. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be kept up to date, and to date, NLP has promised theraputic magic, a science or art of achievement, the most powerful synthesis of psychology available, faster and more powerful treatments than traditional therapies, guaranteed excellence in whatever you want, amazing results through the metamodel/submodalities/parapragmatics/and the most poweful technique for copying Einstein or Jesus known to the bookstore new age section, better management for right brainers, the unfair advantage in sales, and the best collection of pseudoscientific cop-outs since dianetics.

On the other hand, the science'a view (and anyone else with common sense) is that NLP is psychobabble, pseudoscience, mass marketed psychobabble, promotion of mind myths for money, ineffective therapy, unsupported principles, pseudoscientific explanations, pseudoscientific excuses, fraudulent marketing ploy for selling any snakeoil you can put together, and cultlike misinformation for profit.

I'd say that presents both views. HeadleyDown 11:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

selective reading, selective hearing, selective maps of the world, selective words, selective concepts to use, selective belief. are your edits selective too Mr. Headley? and even then would you know how to make the difference?

FWIW,the father of neurolingustics and originator of the often quoted phrase "the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzybski argued that the most accurate maps are produced by science (see General Semantics). By implication the scientific method is the most reliable method for "map construction". flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes FlaviusVanillus. NLP users love to quote Korzybski, but they do so very selectively. Take a look at the intellectual anticedents section on this page. Its outrageous. Most of them will be turning in their grave to think NLPers are namedropping them into the pseudoscience swamp. I think this does come back to the scientific skepticism idea. One piece of pseudoscience says that you must suspend judgment in order to create ideas. NLP does this a lot. But actually, thats all 60s business bunk. The fact is, an expert has a good intuitive idea of whether something will hold or not (intuition in terms of "will this work?"). So if they hear something spurious within idea generation they will drop it like a skunk's legpit. It does not stop them generating; strong skepticism just directs their search better. Anyway, even in groups, idea generation (the amount of ideas generated and the quality) is enhanced through skepticism and dissent. That has been consistent in recent research and goes directly against what new age pseudoscience proposes and assumes throughout (Nemeth 1999 - Minority dissent and idea generation). Anyway, its really interesting stuff. Popular misconceptions and learning from pseudoscientist's mistakes! Cheers DaveRight 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, I agree that not all Korzybski's is selectively imported into NLP. For example, Grinder & Bandler directly quote Korzybski and acknowledge the contributions to formal systems and human modeling (1975). The rest of the Korzybski influence was probably imported via Bateson (1972, 1979). Bateson was very supportive John Grinder and Richard Bandler in their quest to model Perls, Satir and Erickson. And had many long coversations with John Grinder (see eg. Whispering, 2001) whilst writing Mind & Nature. --Comaze 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2: last night I went to look up NLP and science to see reports. I sort of don't want to enter the debate on the particulars with these guys. I could research it more and come up with arguments however it seems futile at the moment. The last few passages I wrote was more an appeal to the editors to do the right thing however skeptical I am of their view of NLP. I say good work with trying to come up with a solution. Keep going please. Lame excuses may come out not to use them. Any way I didnt get to the research as such but came across a page by someone who had also researched NLP and it's claim to science. Yeah we get creamed if we try to say it is a science, I'm not too fazed about that, Nor about it being pseudoscience. Some labels bother me due to misrepresentation I'd hope that people would know how to make the distinction. This guy in the article says in his research he found that developers didnt even want to try and prove it was a science. FT2 if you are a NLPer we both know what a NLPer may feel about trying to prove himself or a theory. This news I hope will be valuable to you and perhaps if you research it, it can be used if proven true then it surely would have some weight as to the outcome of what some testers might have thought "mindreading" toward the NLP advocates. Also Headley the "lame excuse's" line is getting old. I'd like to know what the lame excuses were if you are so inclined to tell us. That's a genuine request. My feeling is that whilst an explaination may not rest well with a tester it may have made perfect sense to a NLPer. PLease tell these "lame excuses" sometimes you have to demonstrate the situation to fully know the communication and it's validity in the original context to be able to know if they were "lame excuses". Justin

Justin, this is a concerning post. Whether NLP can be considered a science is a matter quite distinct from the efficacy of NLP. The epistemic status of NLP (science, pseudoscience or religion) is a matter in the philosophy of science. Whether NLP interventions are more effective than placebo has nothing to do with its epistemic status. The key point is that there is no evidence that NLP is any more effective than placebo. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"The techniques of NLP are so fundamental that they are integrated into the training of all United Nations diplomats." http://dir.niehs.nih.gov/sdnews/july99.pdf --Comaze 00:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

During the 19th century the field of phrenology was enormously popular and influential (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/overview.htm). The popularity or cultural significance of a body of (alleged) knowledge does not render it more or less true. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just taking a few quotes from the above...

Not only do scientists come to this conclusion, but commander in chief's of the US armed forces and their supporting boards of advisors do also.HeadleyDown 11:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You should think about what you're saying. Firstly the president (or whoever) is not qualified to judge if NLP is supported, he leaves it to psychologists etc (who may be on the board of advisors). So I suggest rather than claiming the president as the final word, maybe you should stick to the more relevant claim of scientists. Secondly the US armed forces found that Preferred Rep Systems were unsupported by the studies at that time, and that those studies were flawed... (hence no study supports PRS). Scientists do recognise the difference between "Good studies found no support" and "Bad studies found no support"... though you can generalise and say "studies found no support" which removes some important info. It's integral to research to take into account the flaws in a study. GregA 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

All of the healings and behavioural changes attributed to NLP can be just as well attributed to non-specific factors of the "treatment" (i.e. the placebo effect). In the absence of blinded and controlled studies we can just as well conclude that Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved not by a brilliant execution of the "Fast Phobia Cure" but merely by the non-specific factors of the "null" treatment i.e. patient expectation, patient belief regarding treatment and patient-therapist trust.flavius 06:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all true but has a significant flaw. In the absence of blinded and controlled studies there are other attributions we can make (that's why blinded and controlled studies are preferred). To rephrase what you said - until blinded/controlled studies are done, all you can say is "yes Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process. But we can't definitively say whether it was the NLP process which did it". This difference is important in our discussion (as are the other replies regarding supporting tests of NLP efficacy). GregA 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA, you are missing the point. No, you can't say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process". In the absence of controls it is arbitrary to in any way relate the therapeutic outcome to the NLP fast phobia cure. Why not associate the therapeutic outcome to the color of the room the intervention took place in? On what basis -- in an uncontrolled environment given the powerful effects of non-specific factors -- can you pick one set of variables and disregard the others. The application of the fast phobia cure occurs amidst a sea of variables. The details of the fast phobia cure are no more significant than the other incidentals of the intervention. If you can say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process" the you can just as well say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved after sitting in this chair for 15 minutes". This may appear pedantic but it is the core of the matter. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute and dubious stuff

Well, I see my changes have been reverted with some brief explanation from Hans. I'll present my changes here to get comments and resubmit my changes based on responses.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening

All I changed was "Heap etc find that NLP to be pseudoscience" to "Heap etc state that NLP is a pseudoscience". See NPOV Bias in Attribution.GregA

Heap actually states that NLP is fraudulent. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good addition to my correction, thanks. "find" should say "state", and it was a misquote anyway. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Overview

I added that NLP is applied to therapy, and clarified that NLP is applied to fields. A month ago everyone was saying therapy was the prime application, then self-development became the prime one... but both are valid and representative applications of NLP. GregA

NLP is self help mostly, with some therapists doing a course, and some NLPers pretending to be real therapists. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Self help seems more focussed on group trainings and individuals - though most of the NLP processes are taught as one person (trained in NLP processes) working with another person - ala counselling and coaching. How do you suggest representing this most common 2-person interaction? GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to make an admission that there are a lot of people promoting NLP here when they should be writing an encyclopedia. I see no balance in their arguments. NLP is mostly self help. The therapy people and organizations are minor in comparison with the self help industry part of NLP.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is often training in the modeled patterns of excellence, which are bound to also be able to be used to self-help. It's also used in therapy. We need to clarify the application vs what it is.

I also rephrased the opening paragraph as the prior one was misleading.

(oh, the "NLP includes 3 ideas...." I find confusing - I removed Engram references but I agree they are still confusing so I'll leave them.)GregA

Concerning the changes made; Submodalities needs explaining. Its a bad word anyway, but it should be explained (The distinctions we make within each rep system, the qualities of our internal representations) etc. Right now it is not clear. I also think this is not a "how to do NLP" manual, and so that babble could simply be kept in the pseudoscience section. HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed it's not a "how to do NLP manual". However, if you won't use an NLP term as intended but only put it in the pseudoscience "babble" section then you're incredibly biased. Anyway - you agree we should explain submodalities.

Currently it says "how people store and retrieve past memories is based on transformational grammar". I've not heard anything like that, though I agree that a word has a meaning for people. In fact when accessing memories in NLP you often use a trans-derivational search which uses the representation systems to access a memory, another method is simply asking someone to remember something, or using a timeline. What would you change this line to (you've seen my suggestion). It also confuses what came first etc.. The modeling came first and was related to the grammar, all facts are still represented. The following paragraph says that NLP people changed their mind about 'theory' when transformational grammar was abandoned... that's deliberately misleading.GregA

I noticed that Patrick placed that there. Do you think he is anti NLP or is it simply that NLPers do not even know what each other are on about? Nice bit of psychobabble there also. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. Nice choices you gave me there Maulden. Think outside the square eh?. If we had to be perfect to post here, there wouldn't be anyone posting! Anyway, I don't really care who made a mistake, it's what's written that matters. Do you act differently depending on who says something? Also we've tried a few times to represent the broad scope of NLP training so it's quite likely that we'll have different takes and it's valuable to reflect that. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP also uses the concept of hemispheric differences in order to promote NLP. This must be someone mindreading "NLP" - saying they teach hemispheric stuff because they want to promote NLP???? Got any sources?GregA

Actually, when you look into the background of NLP, the left right thing is throughout all of the books in the form of eye accessing cues diagrams and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when you look throughout the books they usually teach eye-accessing cues and differences in left and right eye cues - but that's not the same thing as tying it to brain hemispheres (though some books do that) GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The intellectual antecedents part is very dubious. I think you could call those wild claims also.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at all the intellectual antecedents comaze was adding. Quite detailed. It seemed simpler to refer to cog sci antecedents as they're the same (very different for what they DO with the antecedents, but the same history).GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very funny. The claims NLPers love to make are completely bogus. NLP was designed to sell. Of course they are going to use names such as Einstein, Perls, Satir and so on. Sounds great, but means absolutely nothing. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wanting to sell a product, is unrelated to the quality of the product. Perls & Satir were original models, are you disputing that? Anyway, back to my sentence, which was there are shared intellectual antecedents with the cognitive sciences.... Comment on that? GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Goals

It says that you can replace beliefs with good ones, or replace beliefs with bad ones. Why not say "it can replace beliefs"? I'm not too worried as long as it's clear.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles & Presups

All I've done is corrected some grammar and explained some slightly clearer. No idea if there's an objection to that.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Modeling

I separated out the common parts of NLP modeling and Analytic modeling, and made the differences clear. Problem?

Background

This had some significant changes simply because so much is irrelevant to NLP. This is not a history of Perls article.

Nor is it a rehash of the scientific testing or spiritual connections - I left a note on these in my change and referred to the appropriate section GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

This section I went back over past changes that have been made and reverted without much comment, and reposted what I thought was fair and hope to have some debate on it. I'll say why I thought it was fair: GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Heap's quote characterising NLP with gullibilism is pretty repetitive, and didn't tie down anything new. Removed. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The British Psych society says nothing negative about NLP so Parker is highly dubious. Platt's comment... well, that line is his opinion not what he called 'review'. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims

I removed the "as yet no scientific evidence" as it clearly belongs in the science section, and it's repeated ad nauseum.

Some statements really do need restating for the sake of clarity. I think you should be happy that the statement does not read "NLP has always been ineffective and is full of ridiculous pseudoscientific salespitch". AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a broken record... it doesn't belong in the "extraordinary claims" section. As to its validity lets talk about that in FT2s section... it's not a clear cut subject. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The claims to breast enhancement are not criticisms against NLP, rather against people making such claims and citing NLP processes. Still worth noting in the article of course.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Unethical Use

This is the area where ecology is really important. Ecology is how NLP processes are used in a way beneficial to the subject, and as such need to be discussed in relation to ethics. Instead it's been removed, so I readded it (and it was removed).

You've got more comments on "NLP is unsupported"... refer to the other section. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious New Age

Firstly I changed the heading to remove the bias. Clarified the application of NLP in those areas. I'm not sure who wrote this originally but it is far more neutral that what's there. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cult Characteristics

You'd better read that one. It's incredibly biased at present. "The presuppositions of NLP create a background for reduced resistance"... really...GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

so in summary....

I see some people wanting to remove "objectionable" facts about NLP. I also think this is just bad editing. I will revert it myself. Really after looking at this article for a few weeks, I see a good deal of real information being presented about NLP, and I see some NLP sellers wanting to remove objectionable knowledge from public view. I noticed a lot of compromise towards the sellers, but none the other way. I think the only way to solve the problem is to explain as I have done, and to change it back. Sorry HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're biased by calling me and others "sellers", and you obviously never read the (temp) page if you think we haven't been forced to compromise alot. Yes explaining is the only way to solve this so please respond to my comments. If (when reverting) you can leave in what you DON'T object to rather than reverting everything it'd make it easier - in good faith I've made these sections above to get your feedback though some are probably unnecessary(??). The biggest problem with this article is that if anyone says anything, it's fair game to go in the article... no wonder it's getting so huge. This in contrast to working out what are minor POVs and getting to the core of what NLP is (which this article fails to do). GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh.. BTW, I just noticed you ONLY commented on the "overview" section. I'm wondering whether you considered the other sections at all.?? And you say "less babble"... can you tell me ANY babble that was added (besides ECOLOGY). yes there is the submodality stuff, which you said needs to be mentioned - how do you personally decide if it needs to be mentioned or is babble? GregA 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-American View is Too Narrow

Hello again. I myself am from mainland Europe and I have noticed that the NLP sellers like to follow the Anglo American view of NLP too much. In Europe and Asia, NLP does not get the same kind of views. It is seen very much as a pseudoscince cult in France, in Germany they are very against such weak methods, and other places also simply call it self help sales speak. This is especially after the 90s when businesses all over were changed and they were told to get used to it using such NLP seminar kind of change management methods. In business it is just seen as hoodwinking. I think this needs to be taken into account much more. The article needs a world view. HansAntel 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The international view is far more reasonable AMaulden 05:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Hans. I'll start putting in the refs you sent us. Best regards HeadleyDown 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A counter example is that requirements engineering using NLP meta model is quite popular in Germany, Australia and Ireland, see example. --Comaze 13:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Well this is going to be interesting. I have actually published journal papers on the psychological aspects of requirements elicitation for information systems development. Claiming that NLP is in widespread use among information systems developers would be like stating psychotherapists primarily refer to physiognomy in order to determine the level of delusion in a client. HeadleyDown 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Research

Hiya Justin: Your points above are noted.

Between work and moving home, I've been nailing down the research Headley & Co. may have missed. I have summarized the abstracts of the research that does seem to be scientific, and the uses of credible bodies who do seem to use NLP significantly, as well as observations on a few apparent concerns over some of the cited sources: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Research

Headley, Logan, DaveRight, Bookmain: It seems you have already sourced your views, including a fair number of questionable citations and assumptions, and dismissively deleted other valid information by other editors who have sought to represent the neutral view Wikipedia aims for. As a result the article is well informed on these views, whereas there is still ignorance on the part of some editors as to the range, depth, and volume of other research and other views in the field. My time being in demand and limited right now, I have cited for now only the missing aspects of research.

Three relevant quotes:

1. "No! To my knowledge, there is no paper or book in existence that says NLP is not a pseudoscience." [43]
2. "I simply represent the views of the scientists that I have read about" [44]
3. "I am happy to make it clear here. If there were a significantly similar number of review studies or large psychotherapy books that stated NLP was not pseudo, then of course there needs to be some balance." [45]

All this information was as available for researching to you and your colleagues here, as to me, Headley. It includes numerous formal clinical trials, tests under anaesthesia, through to scans of the impact of NLP on the human brain. On the usage side it includes a wide range of law enforcement, health, government bodies through to politics and clinical psychiatry. I haven't even begun starting on large scale corporate use. This was all openly visible with a few moments searching. The impression this leaves is that neither you nor your collegues made even the slightest competent attempt like any scientist should, instead you relied upon faith, POV editing, and personal attacks, and failed even to a minor degree to examine your preferred stance critically.

In conclusion, users are invited to please review and consider carefully the many cited researches and usages on the /Research page, and discuss its significance. Thank you. FT2 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. It does not matter how YOU present YOUR version of the story. That is your point of view. The fact is reputable scientists and psychotherapists have categorized NLP as pseudoscience. They have done so based on reviews of ALL the literature.

The scientific view is: NLP is scientifically unsupported, and therefore the wild claims of NLP proponents are completely wrong. The claims continue (and get more wild as the occult/sprituality gets more pronounced) and therefore NLP is pseudoscientific.

You are trying to stuff YOUR thesis on how YOU think NLP is completely supported on to the article. As such, everyone viewing this article is going to notice your desperation, and realise exactly how desperately biased you are towards NLP. HeadleyDown 09:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2. You are doing pretty badly on the research front. I had a good look at the Bolstad reference. Its pretty funny. Meet the chap in person [46]. Not dodgy car salesmanlike at all!:)

Richard Bolstad is not a professor or practicing psychotherapist. He is an NLPer with a clear vested interest in promotion. His scientific sounding (but actually pseudoscientific) article is not published in a peer reviewed independent journal. He is simply writing psychobabble in order to promote his business.

He talks about spiritual transcendence, the natural languages of the brain, modalities (the same old NLP obscurantism), the pseudoscience of representational systems, and split brain myths as if they are absolute truths. He quotes all the supporting evidence (often out of context research from writers who have never even heard of NLP and if they did, they would probably just laugh it off).

He states that emotion affects the perception, but does not say practically to what extent. He talks about checking reality, but does not refer to proper empirical checks. He talks about mirror neurons to support rapport and mirroring, but he does not say exactly how unsupported mirror neurons are. They may exist, but they certainly do not support mirroring, they only might explain the chamelion EFFECT (not cause).

The references he uses are highly selective, often completely out of date (lots of it is debunked) and of course he treats Bandler and Grinder as supreme beings and gives them tons of airing.

Anyway, keep up the hard work; digging yourself into pseudoscience and cultish obscurity. HeadleyDown 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2, you are the biggest misquoter on this article. You actually wrote: "Prof. Lakoff also states "Even if by today's cognitive science research standards some of the original NLP research must be called inadequate, we now can classify NLP research projects as fitting in the field of cognitive science." Lakoff never wrote such a thing. Lakoff is not an NLP fanatic. The more you do this kind of thing, the more people will see you as a fanatic. HeadleyDown 10:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked FT2, and there are no references to NLP in Lakoff's book that you cite and of course nothing about cognitive science and NLP. HeadleyDown 11:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(Note: quote is taken from the intro to his book, citation was provided with quote FT2 11:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Look FT2, I noticed that you also misattributed the other lines to lakoff when in fact the NLP biased reviewer of his book wrote them. HeadleyDown 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The reviewer was biased. I should have known. And the other hundred or so citations? All biased too? Including the NHS, government, police and colleges? FT2 12:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh look, FT2. You continue to represent Sharpley by cutting off his conclusion. Remember that people are actually reading what you write. When you dump vast amounts of bias onto wikipedia, people are going to notice:) HeadleyDown 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I noticed your points above are kind of accusations. I think you are trying to mislead people.

Perhaps I should introduce. I am a therapist, and I came accross this site a while back. I did attend an NLP course a couple of years ago, and found it quite laughable considering all the other training I have received on counseling skills. Anyway, I read through the article and some things that had been nagging at the back of my mind have been well verified. My colleagues tend to call NLP a pseudoscience, and really its more of a motivational guru method. The skills they taught us were miserably simplistic. For example the rapport skills were pseudoscientifically explained (to the point where people laughed and choked on their coffee etc) and ineffective to the point of fostering mistrust. In short, NLP is ineffective and misleading.

Well, to solve that nagging feeling I had a good go through the library, made the relevant photocopies, and indeed, the article is extremely well researched. There are a few things missing, and Hans above seems to have pointed that out already. There are some useful French and German research papers that concur with the Sharpley conclusion (and yes, Sharpley says NLP fails, and is a cult and a fad).

Clearly, NLP is far more of a self help/stage hypnosis concern. It is indeed a fringe therapy concern also, and although I am sure NLP companies love to claim that they teach real therapists, most of those therapists would never boast of being an NLPer. Like myself, the certificate is consigned to the bin.

There are some NLP therapists (who love to claim they are real therapists) and all they do is talk nonsense about pragmatics as if pragmatics do not have a theory.

Certainly psychotherapists are quite alarmed at the amount of bogus therapists there are who charge lots of money for tapping away at your meridians, or waving their fingers in front of your eyes, or indeed doing NLP "changework" as if it is some kind of deep and meaningful method. Its not! It is entirely shallow and can quite reasonably be labeled fraudulent.

In short, the scientific research presented on this article is conclusively negative, and that is exactly factual, truthful and neutrally stated. The only reason for stating otherwise is to do what all NLP people like to do; to twist words and reframe things to make them sound like they have neuroscience, psychology, and the whole of the psychotherapy community supporting them. The more recent literature shows that the medical, psychology, and therapy community is very troubled by the ridiculous claims of NLP charlatans and pseudoscientists. From a global perspective, NLP is just stage hypnosis with some business marketing thrown in. It certainly is not psychology.

Anyway, I appreciate what the nonNLPers have none with the research here, and if I find some aspect of it to help clarify NLP in its rightful place as a messy and misleading pseudoscience, then I certainly will. Sincerely AMaulden 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2, thanks for that page it's great. Still reading. GregA 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi A,

I'm very glad you already knew how to do rapport, after all your personal therapy experience other training on counselling skills. I would hate to think any practicing therapist didn't have rapport skills. I don't know who you trained in NLP with or how long your training was, but I think some of the short courses are the worst for 'hype'... though that's only my own anecdotal experience, which seems to conform with yours?. NLP has some dodgy trainings, and some good ones, and I was lucky I chose a good one (as such I'd like to make sure others know that the quality of NLP courses is quite variable!). I notice you spoke about your own experience, but didn't actually respond to any of FT2's list of research and bodies which show respect to NLP... have you got any comments on those? GregA 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do get some very stupid psych bodies who allow NLPers to do therapy. Usually they are without degrees, and have learned NLP from a biz background in motivational hype. They go in completely unprepared for counseling or psychotherapy and screw people out of money and out of their mind. The course I attended was the best that you could buy, and followed Dilts and Bandler et al to the letter. Conclusion: NLP is just worthless pseudoscience. AMaulden 05:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of offending someone, my sock-puppet detector seems to be trying to get my attention round about now........ "AMaulden". Perhaps either way, now you've vented pointlessly, you might actually try commenting on the research itself? As we told Headley already, Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, it's a place for neutral dispassionate summary of facts. The research page, as best we know it, is factual. Your venting is not. When you understand the difference, state a neutral view. Good day. FT2 06:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2, allow me to vent my view. NLP is most definitely just a lot of hot air. This has to be the most solidly referenced article I have ever seen on NLP. Most of what you read in the shops and adverts is about how NLP is all about science and geniuses and how to be superexcellent and they give nothing to back up their hype. They've been doing the same crap for decades and never deliver any reality on those wild whoppers they keep coming up with. Its so refreshing to read the views of proper psychologists here. Of course it is just about selling books and tickets. Looks to me like YOU have been sussed. Totally. JaseC 07:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

More sock-puppets....? Join the queue, you get taken seriously when you stop venting and comment on the actual research. Until then, read WP:NPOV, and WP:SOCK. Please join the line behind "AMaulden". FT2 09:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2. Just because you post huge amounts of biased extra articles on wikipedia to try to negate the crushing reality effect of the main aricle, does not mean you can go bossing people around. I suggest you have a little more respect. I would allow you to go on insulting them, but I don't want this article discussion to seem too unwelcoming. HeadleyDown 10:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's considerate, Headley. Here's an alternative proposition for you and your suspected sock-puppets instead: explain away the rest of the research. FT2 12:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. In response to Headley's comment:

It does not matter how YOU present YOUR version of the story. That is your point of view. The fact is reputable scientists and psychotherapists have categorized NLP as pseudoscience. They have done so based on reviews of ALL the literature. HeadleyDown 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only wonder Headley - quite simply, for this to be true, the reviews you've referenced must reference EVERY article on FT2's page. AFAIK your reputable scientists are either focussed exclusively on PRS in 1988, or are book authors biased in their point of view (skeptics dictionary, watchman fellowship, science & pseudoscience authors, cult stuff). GregA 14:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, Greg, the research I have read is from highly regarded experts who are also practitioners (of psychotherapy or hypnotherapy or both). I see no reason to question their credibility, especially as they are clearly extremely good researchers (usually some kind of professor). Not only do they have a moral conscience to point out misconceptions, but they do it extremely convincingly. And no, its not just about PRS. The researchers also talk of various signs of pseudoscientific activity such as using holism to cover up failures, to hype using stories rather than directing attention to close examination of assumptions or testing their own methods scientifically. The reviewers tend to agree (including Heap) that the theory is wrong (and pseudo), the results are ineffective, and the hype continues with no real effort to advance the field. I have reported what they say as neutrally as I can, but sometimes the only thing you can do is state it exactly as they say (often harshly). Regards HeadleyDown 13:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, in scientific form - I am questioning

1. their credibility (due often to their goals and target audience for their writings),
2. what they actually did (did they actually do some research or relying on some other? how did they review? what research? etc)
3. whether you are misrepresenting what they did (which so far has happened for most of the better sources)

I won't blindly accept any paper from anyone (nor does Wikipedia encourage that), nor will I blindly accept what you claim they say (you have earned quite the opposite respect). The goal is not to decide whether "your sources are better than mine", but to represent what's been said and done fairly.

Thanks GregA 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

occult and NPOV

I just removed a sentence that says NLP is used for "occult" practices. This sentence is in the part of the intro that is reporting the pro-NLP point of view. I find it highly unlikely that an advocate for anything would call their practices "occult". The "applications" for NLP that can be listed in the pro-NLP part of the intro must be from the main NLP advocates, and it must be sourced. This sentence reads more like it is coming from an anti-NLP critic and is being used to discredit NLP by saying "Look, see? They use NLP for occult ceremonies" or whatever. If that's the case, you must report this in the anti-NLP part of the intro, you must write it in the form of who said it, and you need to provide a URL, so someone else can verify you didn't stretch the truth in order to defame NLP people. Reporting from the source is required for NPOV policy. Providing a URL helps protect wikipedia against defamation lawsuits. And if you do not have a source for the term "occult", it is also violating "No Original Research" policy. FuelWagon 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

who is Jan Damen? Is he a critic or supporter of NLP? Is he an expert in the field in some way that we can report his view as expert testimony? A degree in psychotherapy? Since I can't read german, someone will have to translate the page for me. Also, if he is the only person who uses the word "occult" to describe NLP, someone will need to justify why the opinion of one man is not giving him "undue weight". [47] Please read up on "undue weight" before replying. FuelWagon 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. As best I can determine from computer translation of the Dutch... Jan Damen says he got an article from a friend which referred to the "Cult Pocket Dictionary" by Rob Matzken (director of both "the Bible and Education Association" and "True Christians"). Besides terms such as Reiki, Gnomes, Yoga, Chakras and Halloween, it listed NLP. So he decided to see why Matzken put NLP in that list. He says the book quotes the bible alot and takes the words literally (which he says is debatable). He lists their definition of cult (I think he says "cults claim to expose secrets but are secret themselves" or similar, and that all the cults believe in supernatural, magic, astrology, and spiritualism etc, and such (assumed) strengths are applied to explain and/or master natural events). He then says the booklet says that "NLP uses several occult techniques under pseudo-scientific names such as regression technique (trance work in the past and even previous lives). It also says NLP does Out-of-Body experiences and puts people in a "positive-energy frenzy" - (which he has never experienced in all his NLP trainings and experience). Matzken and his spiritual brothers assume the following basic simple rules - If it is not in the bible or does not respect their explanation of the bible it is wrong; Life is suffering and if you want to change that it is wrong. Jan Damen says he hasn't experience what NLP is accused of, nor does he think their bible interpretation is the more general interpretation of the bible.

The article is really just referring to another intense Christian group and their beliefs. I don't know why Headley thought this was worth any more than any of the other cult/christian links like the watchman stuff.

Personally I was surprised that Yoga was in that list (but that's just me!). Certainly NLP doesn't teach out-of-body stuff, but I concede that some "timeline" guys talk about past lives (though when I've heard or read that, it always also says "It doesn't matter what's true, just what you believe in this context which we're going to explore"). I assume the positive frenzy is like some of those LGATs Headley keeps saying are NLP - I've never experienced them in an NLP context though what I've seen was using some very effective language, anchoring, and belief change patterns (whether conscious or unconscious), patterns that I recognised because I've been NLP trained to recognise them. Hope the above helps GregA 22:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

disputed claims and sources

I also just removed a sentence that said "NLP has also been identified by the British Psychological Society as quintessential charlatanry (Parker 1999).". This was tagged by someone as being dubious. If this statement is untrue, it exposes wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit. Given how severe this sentence is, and given the penalties that could occur if it is actually wrong, it needs to be removed until it can be verified to be true. Before reinserting this claim, please provide a URL so that others can verify the accuracy of the sentence. Once again, a name in parenthesis does not cut it for wikipedia's requirements of verifiability. Please familiarize yourselves with wikipedia policy on NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability. FuelWagon 16:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a dubious/dispute tag on the Sanghera newspaper article. Voice of All has removed it and it now says "Critics say that NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudo-science that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions (Sanghera, 2005)."

I still dispute that for 3 reasons:

1. the wording is highly emotional and interpretative
2. the quality of the source is questionable
3. I think it misrepresents quality scientific/research based critics.

Perhaps there are 2 types of critics - those that emotionally attack NLP (eg Sanghera, Platt, Morgan, Carrol), and those that dispassionately research NLP (eg Druckman, Sharpley). And there are many in the middle (eg Singer, Lilienfield).

Does anyone else think the whole quote is dubious? GregA 22:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sanghera is stating a common set of criticisms. It is entirely representative. It does come from a reliable source (The Financial Times) and gives a great account of someone's view of the subject.JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers are not reliable sources. One way of thinking about it is the time and effort that goes into a reference (research has a huge time investment, as do books, newspaper articles and websites are rather small-time really). Another way is to judge is whether there is a financial incentive to present a certain POV (eg for better sales). And lastly a consideration of who the readers are and how their reactions will alter the quality of the article. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

VoiceofAll has removed my dubious tag in another sentence by adding the word "often".

"NLP has often been characterised gullibility, naivety of thinking, and sheer fraudulence (Heap 1991)."

I think this needs to be hugely clarified. Heap had earlier said negative things in conjunction with positive things... in 1988 it seemed he wished to present things fairly (but he was easy to misquote too!). Perhaps this should be attributed to a group (especially "fraudulence"). What do others think? GregA 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully :-)...). I also noticed that you dispute:

Remember what happened during the late 80s and early 90s. Tony Robbins and a whole lot of therapists dumping NLP because it was debunked! Heap is demostrating his conclusive view. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll really have to clear up how Anthony Robbins relates to NLP. Especially when Headley has been pushing the Robbins does LGAT's in the criticisms, and you guys are criticising Tony Robbins for doing NLP under the name NAC (as opposed to your criticism above the Robbins dumped NLP entirely). Perhaps Tony Robbins needs a subheading of his own?

Apart from that lets focus on representing what was said - that means finding a way of showing what we both have read from the same article, fairly and accurately. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some NLP training programs used in the business sector have received complaints for being coercive. There were some complaints of undue and forced adoption of fundamental beliefs and intense confrontational psychological techniques, tantamount to a forced religious conversion (Singer 1995)."

This is correct. I have the photocopy of that page. Singer (RIP) was a world authority on cults and manipulation and like a lot of psychologists was repelled by how people tried to get business employees to be really cheerful about having their livelihoods threatened during the "downsizingfest" of the 90s. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See my response earlier, below - I'm not debating that Singer said this. I'm debating whether he attempts to be representative of business complaints and just how minor it is. Looks like Singer and I are both repelled by anyone trying to get an employee to be cheerful while downsizing... have you got a relevant point about that? GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I cant find this on the research subpage however.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(Don't assume that because it's not there it does, or does not, exist. There is a huge body of research, I've had to say "enough is enough" in listing it. FT2 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Well I need to know what is wrong with so I know whethor to leave it or take out the digital scissors ;-).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. Your changes are appreciated. Please do not be conned into pasting NLP promoter's cuttings into the article. For the most part they have the conclusive statements missing from the paragraph. Your last edits in the science section had those problems. Its completely forgivable considering the literature is actually very large and difficult to get through. The conclusions that neutral editors post into the article have been taken from multiple sources and they concur with each other. The latest literature states that NLP is wrong, unsupported, ineffective etc and cites Druckman, Heap, VonBergen, and Sharpley 97, amongst others. They all use the conclusions that NLP is scientifically unsupported. None of them say there are limitations, because Sharpley has already established that there are no limitations. I have been trying to keep to that very neutral statement (scientifically unsupported), but as you may have noticed, any cutting from the middle of paragraphs by the promoters will tend to lead to me having to paste the actual harsh conclusive statements of scientists. Regards HeadleyDown 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOFAll, perhaps I should explain further. Heap and Druckman did not take Sharpley's 1987 paper into account when considering Einspruchs criticism of the review. Recent reviews do take Sharpley 87 into account. They state that NLP is pseudoscience, fraudulent, grossly misleading etc. They also say that Einspruch and Formann are putting the burden of proof on the testers, rather than the claimers. That is a pseudoscientific argument. The burden of proof should always be on the people claiming to give 10 minute phobia cures etc. Of course, NLP promoters never provided reliable proof (just stories pseudoscientific explanations and more hype - according to Lilienfeld, Singer, Eisner etc). Regards HeadleyDown 04:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. (Is there a way I can mark something as dubious and explain why I marked it that way?)

I added the "Some" to the beginning of the sentence "NLP training programs used in the business sector... (are like)... forced religious conversion (Singer)". My concern was (and is) that we don't have any idea whether this is based on 1 complaint, hundreds, 1%, 100% etc. If you look at the research page under "Recognition by other bodies" - in particular "NLP is used in management and staff training by:" I think this represents a lot of respected business bodies who endorse NLP courses in some way. The negative stuff is significant minority but the perception of negative stuff may be more common and as such should be reflected in the article appropriately.

Standard disclaimer of course... that NLP processes can be used by any group in any way, and sometimes this is interpreted as a reflection on NLP rather than the person who used it (like saying that Tae Kwon Do is a method of bullying etc). GregA 02:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If you could, you would probably mark science as dubious. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A nice vague remark and totally meaningless. Is there something specific I've said that warrants that? Anything unfairly represented is disputable. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown reversion

I've posted to HeadleyDown's talk page directly regarding his recent large reversion to the NLP article. FuelWagon 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Its pretty simple, FuelWagon. If you have lots of people advocating a large collection of points, and someone makes huge changes to the article, you can pretty much expect reversion. Especially as you make changes that are completely unreasonable and quite censorious. HeadleyDown 17:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't censorship, HeadleyDown. This is all about policy. You continuously violate NPOV, No Original Reseach, Verifiability, and Undue Weight. These are all wikipedia policies on how to write an article. You haven't followed any of them. Until you do, your personally biased edits in direct violation of policy will be reverted. FuelWagon 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. I have seen your large collection of information. I notice that a great deal of it is completely wrongly marked, strategically arranged, and similar to your efforts on this article, some of the conclusively negative statements are censored. I see your large set of biased remarks as a massive piece of evidence that you are probably even more biased than Tony Robbins. It is very clear that you simply want to promote NLP. JPLogan 02:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

... and yet you've done little other than complain in general about them. How about actually checking out the research described yourself instead of complaining? Or are you saying all 100 abstracts are inaccurate? Its a shame that for a scientific person, you are unable to approach it scientifically as others do. I'd like a citation from a reputable scientist or journal of each one you claim is not taken seriously, thanks. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 03:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also that if you wish to write your neutral assessment of FT2's collection of notes, you will probably have it removed from that page by FT2, even though FT2 has pasted his own pro-NLP POV all over the page. HeadleyDown 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I find that an amazingly good idea of FT2's, it keeps the discussion on this page where we can all see. There's atleast one editor who seems to deliberately want to make a response harder to track or follow (you may not know who I'm talking about) so I think this is a good idea. GregA 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)