Misplaced Pages

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 17 November 2005 editFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 edits FuelWagon's notion of neutral← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:52, 3 December 2024 edit undoMarmotteNZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users808 edits Really bad sentence ?: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
*]
{{Talk header}}
*]
{{American English}}
*]
{{Article history|action1=FAC
*]
|action1date=12:53, 29 January 2006
*]
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=37173548


|action2=PR
|action2date=19:38, 17 May 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=53459411


|action3=PR
== Accusation of POV ==
|action3date=20:25, 28 December 2006
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive2
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=96983242


|action4=PR
<font color="darkblue">'''Could everyone please stop accusing the other side of POV, as it is by no means helpful; lets just try to edit this article and if talk doesn't work, then I will try to come up with a compromise that still support Wiki policy(NPOV).'''
|action4date=20:51, 5 February 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive3
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=105758979


|action5=GAN
<font color="darkblue">'''Also, please change only ONE section at a time. Thank you.'''</font>] <sup>]|]|]</sup></font> 05:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
|action5date=12 December 2007
|action5result=not listed
|action5oldid=177059328


|action6=PR
|action6date=18:39, 29 November 2012
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive4
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=525550741


|currentstatus=FFAC
Sure, VoiceOfAll. I did also come to that conclusion. I re-posted the information that admits NLP and other pseudosciences such as Dianetics, EFT, and EMDR have also been listed as being used within psychology associations. This is simply to clarify, balance and frame the criticisms properly. regards ] 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high |attention= }}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=
}}
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
Hello VoiceOFAll. I noticed you removed the concluding statement from Sharpley 87. I think you are completely justified in doing so. The reason it was placed there was because an NLP promoter kept placing a selectively edited and inconclusive discussion statement from Sharpley within the opening criticism section. I certainly agree with keeping the article brief. Novelty in Sharpley's paper would refer to the wild claims of "new improved" or "new theraputic magic" etc. The Sharpley conclusion may well have to go back there sometime in future in order to fend off the selective editing of NLP promoters. I can remove the bit that says "novelty" in future though if you like. Regards ] 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Shortened Citation Notes ==
::Nothing will be added to "fend-off" anyone. However I will try to get the intro NPOV and keep it that way.] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


The article currently uses a mix of referencing styles and there are missing page numbers for quotes or what may or may not be paraphrased text but we don't know because there are missing page numbers. See ] for a guide how add page numbers and quotes. --] (]) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''', it's disruptive. See ], which requires a ] from the regular editors of the page before you may do so: "'''Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.'''" ] (]) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Great VoiceOfAll! I'll help you keep it NPOV. Regards ] 05:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
*:I would contend that it was not "merely on the grounds of personal preference". I was looking at the best practises in other Good and Featured Article candidates. I'm personally most comfortable with the APA format but done research papers using Harvard referencing style with footnotes. I was thinking that style was the best for this article. Given that the article covers critiques from counseling psychology, coaching psychology, communications theorists, sociology and linguistics, its not simple. Do you have examples of article with similar content and multidisciplinary critiques? What referencing style worked best? --] (]) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


:I also notice that {{ping|Newimpartial}} reverted you on just after you broke a bunch of citations by trying the same thing back on 5 May, a day or so before I noticed what you were doing. So that's 2 opposed. ] (]) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:Hi Voice of All. I'm thinking that most of our comments or reversions involve a claimed attempt by ourselves to be more NPOV (and hence "they're using POV"... Am I right to assume that what you're asking is for us not to use "NPOV" as an explanation, rather spell out any reasoning for change, in detail?
::I’ve already explained this and it is also in the edit comments. I fixed that citation errors. I didn’t know about the display error setting which was off by default. Again, I did appreciate your help. When I get more time, I’ll go back and justify each change. —] (]) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:As for one section at a time - might I suggest we do any major change to opening/overview last so they can reflect whatever NPOV we've come to in the other sections? ] 08:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:::'''• Oppose,''' as ] explained to you, you can't just change citation style without ]. If you want to do changes '''you have to clearly justify them''' in order to show other editors your reasons or concerns about it, and if these go according to the ]. ] (]) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, and in light of POV - Headley, you always call us "pro", and presuppose you are the "neutral editors" (we call you anti). Labelling yourself Neutral doesn't make you less biased... in fact it may do the opposite.
::::You're absolutely right about needing consensus. My first step should have been proposing these referencing changes here on the talk page. Would you be willing to join a discussion about how to best improve the consistency and verifiability of the article's references? --] (]) 06:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::As the ] sustains. Citations are key for ]. Looking at the changes you , im concerned that these could compromise the access of common editors and readers to those sources. Which is '''very''' crucial for this article.
:::::Editors with their own personal bias can incur in practices (like meat-puppetry) that violate ],],].
:::::The controversies sorrounding NLP obligate us as editors to make sure we are not doing ]. Which, for surprise of no one, has to be verified by others. For that reason, i think is naive to compare it to other articles just because different citation styles were used, or due to their extensivity in other disciplines. ] (]) 06:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There are several ways to add pagenumbers in/with reftag-refs (not surprisingly), including ]. ] (]) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:The inconsistent styles and missing page numbers make ] and editing difficult. Have you come across similarly complex articles that successfully used <nowiki>{{Rp}}</nowiki> or other templates to maintain readability while ensuring accurate citation information? Especially ones covering multiple disciplines, as this article does? The immediate issue is that there are paraphrasing of sources without clear page numbers which makes ] difficult. Another issue is that are duplicates of the same sources across the article. That was an advantage of using <nowiki>{{efn}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki>. We are already using <nowiki>{{r}}</nowiki> in the article. <nowiki><ref></nowiki> is also often combined with <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki>. Also some of the quotes in the current article are inside the cite element when they would be better handled as an <nowiki>{{efn}}</nowiki>. We have critiques from linguistics, counseling psychology, anthropology and sociology. --] (]) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::I have nothing against sfn etc as a style, though ref-tag is always my choice when ''I'' start articles, with rp if necessary. IMO reftag is generally more understandable for general and new users, and both VE and source editors benefits from named refs if used. But an article should be consistent, and if consensus here is to use sfn or whatever, that's fine. ] (]) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Fwiw, my knee-jerk reaction when scrolling through the ref section, is that "traditional reftag" seems to be the majority use, so if I was to start working on consistency, I would change the "Jeremiah 1995." style ones and get rid of the "Works cited" sections. But if the primary/secondary division is considered valuable, that might not work. I think some Wikipedians consider the more academic look of sfn-style a mark of quality. ] (]) 06:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm told that <nowiki>{{cite Q}}</nowiki> would solve one of the issues I had with existing use of <nowiki><ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal|...}}</ref></nowiki>. <nowiki>{{cite Q}}</nowiki> enables you to pull the reference data from wikidata by using its Q ID. It was too verbose and made it difficult to maintain especially in source mode. My proposal is for any citations that are current citations that are defined inline such as <nowiki>"<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal..."</nowiki> that if that citation is on wikidata then we is replace it with <nowiki>"<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite Q|..."</nowiki>. That will reduce some of the clutter and retain existing r and rp template use. Then we can use r and rp. Then if there is consensus to use sfn then we can adopt that together with efn which is already in use in the current article. --] (]) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::No, you should revert to the previous citation style per consensus and ], full stop. ]] 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::Do you know what I mean by <nowiki><ref name="...">{{Cite Q|...}}</nowiki>? It just moves the clutter of the reference out of the content. That is one of the biggest issues with the article in its current state. Its still using the same citation style. It is a wrapper for <nowiki>{{Citation}}</nowiki> that returns formatted citation from statements stored on a Wikidata item (referred to by its Q identifier or QID) for citable source. It would be a good interim solution while consensus is sought for sfn which is my preference as it would be far more professional. efn has been used in the article for years. --] (]) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yes, I know what it means, I've used it myself. It is a different method of referencing, even if the output looks the same. The words "method" and "style" are used interchangeably on the guideline page, but the reason underlying changes in both is {{em|the changes are disruptive to others}}, hence why the guideline is to defer to the first format used in a dispute: other editors who want to edit this page don't want to suddenly swap to having to look up Wikidata codes. You seem increasingly unwilling to understand that. ]] 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Do you understand that we are currently using <nowiki><ref>{{Cite Journal |...}}</ref></nowiki> in the article and post people use tools already like to populate the details of that from the DOI, ISBN, etc. So using <nowiki><ref>{{Cite Q |...}}</ref></nowiki> might actually be less work, and they'd be familiar anyway. The editors who don't undertstand wiki syntax usually use a visual editor or they just rely on other wikipedians to clean up after them. I guess we'll need to wait for others to chime in with their preferences. --] (]) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Do you understand that whether you think they'd like it better doesn't matter? ]] 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::some like the simplicity of ref even thought sfn is technically better. There are featured articles that use ref only but the longer ones with notes and many references prefer sfn. —] (]) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Again, as pointed out just above, that is irrelevant here. The only relevant thing is whether you have consensus or not. Clearly, you don't. ] (]) 11:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I’d like to hear the arguments for and against sfn v ref, with examples. Besides none of the regular contributors to this specific article have raised objections so there is no evidence of clear consensus from regular editors. I have enabled errors so I can correct the errors you complained about. I think now consensus can be sought through editing and discussion. —-] (]) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, the burden to demonstrate a change is preferable is on you. If no one agrees, then you may not make the change. (You have; no one has; you may not.) People are entitled to establish consensus regardless of contributions; frequent editors do not ] the articles in question. ]] 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I must have misunderstood what you were saying on AN/I. I thought your earlier point was that changing from ref to sfn referencing format would be unwelcome because of the learning curve for the existing or previous editors of this article, or that existing editors might not like it. You said, "the changes are disruptive to others" (above). I assumed you were referring to previous editors of this article. How could it possibly be disruptive to edits who have never edited this article? I assumed you meant you needed to obtain consensus from them (previous editors of this article). None of them have commented yet. However, the silence from the previous contributors could be interpreted in different ways. It could mean that they are indifferent to the change, that they are unaware of the discussion (most likely scenario), or that they are still forming opinions. Anyway, I'm going to help out at ] not to recruit or canvas support but to learn more about the interaction between sfn, efn and ref formats - as well as learning more about ] --] (]) 16:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'd note that converting references to Cite Q en masse would be contentious even without CITEVAR. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::my intention for suggesting sfn was to enhance readability and maintainability. With sfn, you define the reference using cite templating in the bibliography. Assuming ref is inadequate too, do you know of an alternative solution that meets that need given the huge number of citations on this article? —] (]) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::120 inline citations is simply not a particularly high number, and is adequately accommodated by any common means of citation. ]] 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm well aware of how {{tl|sfn}} templates work, but your supposition that ref tags are inadequate is simply your own personal opinion. You won't find any concensus that one form of referencing is better than another, the editing community is deeply split on the matter. This is why CITEVAR warns against changing style types, as it causes unnecessary drama that wastes editors time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Afaik, neither VE or ] has any "format ref as sfn/harvn" option, is that correct? Also, no ref-tag, no named ref. ] (]) 12:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Kind of, VE supports adding templates so it supports {{tl|sfn}} (as long as you know what they are), the same would be true of {{tl|r}}, {{tl|ref}}, {{tl|efn}}, etc. I don't think the REFTOOLBAR point is relevant, if you already using source editing then using the toolbar to format sfn/harv would take longer than typing it.<br>I don't think REFTOOLBAR has any ability to re-use a refname, but again it would be quicker to type it, VE certainly can though. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Reftoolbar absolutely has the ability to re-use a refname, "Named references", to the right of the ref-template drop-down. ]. In VE it's Cite > Re-use. In source, you name them with the "Ref name" field in the template window. ] (]) 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Your right, I had missed that in REFTOOLBAR. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


* '''Neutral'''. I'm not super educated on the nuances of citation styles, but I feel like the citation style used on this article in particular is not super important. I think the bigger issue is that when Notgain tried to convert it all to {{tl|sfn}} without gaining consensus, they did so ''incorrectly'', and broke citations in the process. I've used {{tl|sfn}} and tend to prefer it with more complicated articles such as this one, but if other editors are opposed, I'm prepared to respect that; I'm not convinced Notgain is, which is another issue. (Also, the ] on this issue ended without clear consensus and without admin closure; I'm not sure what to make of it, but it feels relevant.) '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">]</span> ] 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Well you have all had a busy weekend. OK VoA, I'll do my best to calm the sarcasm gland in the interests of the article. Cheers] 02:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*:sfn was it is easier to read in source mode but I now have source highlighting so I’ve settled. I’m not going to push sfn on the great unwashed. —15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


== Druckman & Swets 1988 ==
==Research Subpage==
Before I forget, can someone who has editing rights update the reference to Druckman & Swets 1988 report? The consensus of the committee was discussed in chapter 8. Note that the DOI in the current reference to Druckman&Swets 1988 is incorrect (it points to a of the committee's consensus report, not the report itself), please change to: <nowiki>{{cite book | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}}</nowiki> or if you want to include the editors: <nowiki>{{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=Daniel | last2=Swets | first2=John A. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}}</nowiki> That was a honeytrap for some researchers copy and pasting from wikipedia without checking sources. Otherwise, there's the named reference version for those who prefer that style: <nowiki><ref name="Druckman-1988">{{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=D. | last2=Swets | first2=J. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | pages=133-166 | chapter=8: Social Processes}}</ref></nowiki> --] (]) 04:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::You need to add a bibliography with complete citations. As it currently stands the abstracts are incomplete. One of the purposes of citation is to allow the possibility of review by other parties. This objective cannot be fulfilled because you have not provided complete citations (i.e. author(s) fullname, name of publication, edition). ] 07:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


:The use of Druckman and Swets (1988) as a reference to support the statements #1 "Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method" and #2 "Bandler led several unsuccessful efforts to exclude other parties from using NLP" is problematic. Druckman (2004) clarifies that the panel evaluated techniques like NLP for their potential in "enhancing learning, improving motor skills, altering mental states, managing stress, or improving social processes." The panel's focus was on NLP's potential for social influence, not its therapeutic applications. They found NLP's assumptions and effectiveness ''in social influence'' to be unsupported by psychological evidence. Its worth noting that the panel was "impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique," this interest in modeling does not directly speak to NLP's effectiveness as a therapeutic method. The fact that the planned NLP training was not implemented could suggest the type of "unsuccessful efforts" hinted at in statement 2, but this remains speculative. I couldn't find anything in the cited source to directly support statement 2. Therefore, it's recommended to remove Druckman and Swets (1988) as a supporting reference for these two statements. --] (]) 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello Flavius. To add a bibliography would go against the promotional editor's purpose. If you could check the actual research, you would come to the same conclusion as all the other neutral editors. NLP is pseudoscientific, wrong in theory and application, and misleading (kindly put; scientifically unsupported and pseudoscientific). The most conclusive and encyclopedic evidence is already on the article page, and you are welcome to check it out. If you spend your time looking through the inconclusive refs presented on the alternative research page, you would just go round in circles. The burden of proof rests upon the NLP promoters, and they have not presented any evidence for NLP's principles or claimed efficacy. The most basic conclusion of recent reliable researchers is that NLP is scientifically unsupported. No need to take my word for it. Regards ] 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::'''•Denied''', while the Druckman and Swets (1988) aim is not the therapeutic effectiveness of NLP, it touches the lack of empirical evidence on representational systems, you even quoted this from the article: ''"Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence '''for NLP's assumptions <u>OR</u> effectiveness as a therapeutic method"'''''
::The review is clearly relevant. ] (]) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. Statement #1 was from the current article, not the source. The NRC (Druckman and Swets 1988) did not review NLP as for its therapeutic application. And you have have not addressed statement #2 which is not suppprted by the source either. If you think it is please provide page numbers to substantiate for verifiability. —] (]) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It seems you're reading statement #1 as "and/or", which would make the Druckman & Swets (1988) source relevant because it addresses the lack of empirical evidence for NLP's assumptions. However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement. It is important to distinguish between NLP's assumptions, and its effectiveness in different areas of application - whether it be therapeutic, management or social influence, as we discussed earlier. To be clear while the NRC (Druckman & Swets 1988) provides a strong review into NLP's assumptions, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. Other reviews do. Therefore, I’d prefer to cite separate, relevant sources for each part of statement #1. This will aid in ]. —] (]) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::What? Where is stated that the sources for that particular case should adress both?
:::::Even you proposed a section around persuasion, which is one of the different approaches of NLP. The whole article, including that single sentence is referring to NLP '''in general.'''
:::::It gets worst when we analize your own statement: ''"However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement."''
:::::For your own argument then a source that adresses just one aspect is still valid, because it's providing evidence for a specific claim; it would be a problem if and only if was the only source cited to sustain the lack of evidence in regards to the therapeutic approach of NLP; which is not the case.
:::::The "interpretation" (which this is '''not''' about) you highlight plays against you.
:::::I don't get it. ] (]) 22:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::I hear your point about the use of the word “or” in the statement #1 and how it could be interpreted to mean that a source addressing just one aspect is still valid. However, my premise is that for a more accurate representation of the sources, it would be ideal if each part of the statement is supported by citing relevant sources that directly address the respective claim in line with ].
::::::While the Druckman & Swets (1988) source does review NLP’s assumptions from a psychological perspective, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness. So my suggestion was to use separate, relevant systematic review, critical review or meta analyses to substantiate each each part of the statement in line with ]. The textbook you mentioned (that had a section critiquing the use of NLP in influence) would not meet that criteria either but would also require page numbers for verifiability, and it is not a systematic review.
::::::Statement #1 makes specific claims about NLP’s assumptions and its therapeutic effectiveness, which are distinct aspects of NLP. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure that the sources cited for this statement directly support the respective claims in line with ]. —] (]) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So we agree but we don't agree... I still don't get it.
:::::::''"It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness."'', and how is that a problem?, did you even notice that is not the only source listed in the specific note (which is the '''''k''''' one) for those affirmations right?
:::::::As i said, it would be a problem if it was the only source for such affirmations. Which is not the case. ] (]) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The use of endnote to reference Statement #1 (S1) without page numbers makes it difficult to confirm if the claims are supported. Its unclear which source supports which part of the statement raising issue of ]. The statement mentions "numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses," yet none of the six references in are meta-analyses, so it is misleading. Witkowski (2010) is the only more recent quantitative and qualitative literature review of the empirical evidence (there are more recent ones that could be added). Sharpley (1983/87) and Heap (1988) focuses on the contested PRS. Heap (1988) explicitly states that NLP's effectiveness in clinical settings had yet to be experimentally evaluated at that time. Von Bergen et al. (1997) is unrelated, focusing on NLP in human resources development (HRD) - there are more recent review related to HRD. So I suggest page numbers should be added, and the relevance of each source to the statement should be clarified. Modifying Statement #1 to accurately reflect the cited sources and potentially incorporating additional, relevant meta-analyses or systematic reviews. --] (]) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Witkowski 2010 is a meta-analysis.
:::::::::The sources themselves cite other studies and meta-analysis which aren't as accessible (the use of public access sources is something that we as editors must try to implement, there are instances in which a reliable source is behind a paywall and shouldn't be discarted. This aspect kind of limits the sources that can be used by Misplaced Pages, more on that here: ].) ] (]) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Witkowski 2010 is a literature review, not a ]. The paywall issue, while important, doesn’t address the relevance and accuracy of sources. Druckman & Swets (1988) doesn’t directly address therapeutic effectiveness, so it may not be the most suitable reference for that part of the statement. —] (]) 20:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The wikipedia article of Meta-analysis as well: ''"Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review procedure."''
:::::::::::The wikipedia article for systematic review''s: "In practice, when one is mentioned the other may often be involved, <u>'''as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review even if it includes the meta-analytical component'''.</u> "'' Which is the case for Witkowski 2010 (which is not a literature review as you said), and is presented in the page 60.
:::::::::::I didn't explained myself well on the subject of accessibility, sorry for that; but i brought it to the table because we are also discussing citation problems within the article and the changes you have been trying to do. The thing is that we cannot put more and more sources for a series of affirmations. For that we need to follow certain guidelines like the mentioned ], to ensure the ], and ], the other issue is that the changes you did would infringe not just the previous citation style but the "orientation" sort to speak of editors of what sources are public, hard to verify (like ]) or behind a paywall. This is important because it could help improve the article if an affirmation hasn't been verified.
:::::::::::The sources more than just once conclude with the fact that NLP lacks empirical evidence. There is no original research problem in such affirmations. ] (]) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::With all due respect, Witkowski 2010 is a critical analysis, not a systematic review. It lacks a pre-defined protocol, specific research question, and rigorous assessment of evidence quality, which are key characteristics of a systematic review. See ]—01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::: —] (]) 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If the statement #1 is claiming that “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP’s assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method,” then it should be supported by references to actual literature reviews and meta-analyses. There are no meta analyses directly cited, so either add a citation if it exists and meets ], or revise the statement for accuracy. —] (]) 01:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The systematic review of Witkowski is rigorous enough in its analysis of the quality of the presented evidence. If you have any concern in such aspect then clarify it, be ''specific'' for those concerns.
:::::::::::::There is no affirmation that violates ] with the cited sources. ] (]) 02:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::In the letter to the editor of the Polish Psychological Bulletin, Aleksandra cite Witkowski 2010 as a "systematic review" {{cite journal | last=Witkowski | first=Tomasz | last2=Luszczynska | first2=Aleksandra | title=Letters to Editor | journal=Polish Psychological Bulletin | volume=44 | issue=4 | date=2013-12-01 | issn=0079-2993 | doi=10.2478/ppb-2013-0049 | pages=462–464}} along with Sturt 2012 {{doi|10.3399/bjgp12X658287}}. So at least one third party source refer to it as a systematic review. However, it does not meet the PRISMA criteria for a systemic review and there is no statistical meta-analysis. So I still maintain it would be better described a critical review of empirical research. There are a number of systematic reviews that came after Witkowski 2010 as we discussed earlier. And I think there is at least one 2015 meta-analysis, Zaharial, Reiner and Schütz 2015 {{PMID|26609647}} that has not been cited yet. --] (]) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The meta-analysis of Schütz et al is flawed. I'm reading it and is worrying that the total of studies that were analyzed were just 12.
:::::::::::::::But there is another issue.
:::::::::::::::''"Overall, we finally included 12 studies with a total number of individuals of 658 (studies that analysed different subgroups from the <u>same population</u>). On average, the numbers of participants in each study was small, ranging between 12 and 115 subjects".''
:::::::::::::::One component of the inclusion-exclusion criteria: ''"Not the right population: studies conducted on healthy individuals with social/psychological problems (n=19)"''
:::::::::::::::Data analysis: ''"The inspection of the funnel plot was done visually."''
:::::::::::::::Jeffrey Chan and Amer Harky warn of the inclusion of non-randomized studies without risk of bias assessment (I mention it too because the small commentary also mentions the risks involved in methods that use visual inspection of heterogeneity across studies).
:::::::::::::::Schwarzer et al. give a more comprehensive picture of the risks sorrounding meta-analysis that use small studies. Like the one you cite. Im well aware that Schütz et al. conducted a publication bias analysis: ''"Begg and Majumdar's rank correlation nor Egger’s regression test was significant (p=0.73 and p=0.45, respectively), which indicates no publication bias."''
:::::::::::::::But, as Schwarzer et al. Point out other possible causes: ''"Another possible cause of small-study effects is clinical heterogeneity between patients in large and small studies; e.g., patients in smaller studies may have been selected so that a favourable outcome of the experimental treatment may be expected. In the case of a binary outcome, also a mathematical artefact arises from the fact that for the odds ratio or the risk ratio, the variance of the treatment effect estimate is not independent of the estimate itself Lastly, it can never be ruled out that small-study effects result from mere coincidence . Empirical studies have established evidence for these and other kinds of bias . There is a vast range of tests for small-study effects , most of them based on a funnel plot which will be introduced in Sect. 5.1.1"''
:::::::::::::::My concerns is that the meta-analysis you brought to the table is a false-positive, even the authors write: ''"there is a major lack of high-quality data from observational, experimental studies or randomized trials on this field, Up until now there is insufficient data to recommend this form of therapy strongly in reducing some psychosocial problems."'' Making it an inconclusive study. ] (]) 20:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Let’s not cherry pick. I return to the Statement #1 that currently mentions “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses”. The limitations of these studies should be mentioned if in line with ] —] (]) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Cherry pick what?
:::::::::::::::::Are you really trying to reach a consensus or not? because i don't see you actually addressing the points that emerge of the sources that you, '''you''' as a proponent of them should be considering and analyzing in a careful manner.
:::::::::::::::::You know what's the worst?, that i shouldn't have made that analysis, not only because is your responsability to at least read the sources you want to implement, but because the page talk is not for that. Neither of what is your opinion of what is or what is not a systematic review. As you said, reliable sources refer to Witkowski 2010 as a systematic review. '''End of the debate.'''
:::::::::::::::::There is no original research involved, period. ] (]) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}That was an astute observation. The funnel plot inspection in the Schütz et al. study was done visually, which can introduce subjectivity and potential bias. While they noted this limitation and the small number of studies, this impacts the robustness of findings. This is amplified because the authors (e.g. Peter Schütz) appear to be practitioners (not academic researchers) which introduces another source of potential subjectivity bias. If it were to be cited, the limitations would need to be made clear. I maintain that Witkowski 2010 is not a systematic review or meta-analysis - it was a scathing critical review of empirical literature. It does '''NOT''' meet the PRISMA criteria for systematic review or meta-analysis as noted earlier. I encourage you to consider these points and reevaluate. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. --] (]) 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


:Why you keep insisting on the PRISMA declaration?.
:::I quickly reviewed FT2's truncated abstracts and citations and I offer the following observations: (a) at least some are not sourced from reputable, peer-reviewed journals; and (b) most of the summaries are replete with vague and imprecise quantificational language (eg. "most helpful", "positive correlation" (magnitude?), "partially positive effects", "strongly related", "marked improvement", "positive reduction", "deeper trance", "substantially", "very helpful", "enormous changes", "very many of the people" etc.). The use of such vague language is evidence of methodological defect. I have reviewed some of the cited literature and I too am of the view that NLP is largely -- if not entirely -- without substance, ineffective (beyond non-specific factors) and without any scientific basis. ] 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:I don't know if you are aware, but the PRISMA declaration was sort of an "update" to the QUORUM declaration in 2009. Which it's main focus at the beginning was clinical meta-analysis and systematic reviews. It was not as adopted in 2010 like now, even the paper presenting the declaration was published at the beginning of 2010.
:Still tho, Witkowski meets the QUORUM declaration. But the declaration is not necessary in order to consider something as a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It just secures that the data analysis is not biased in certain ways. ] (]) 15:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Morgan 1993 ==
:::That's unfortunate Headley.
:::The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not just if a person is presenting supporting evidence. I note also that you presuppose the references presented are "inconclusive", yet rather than opening debate you encourage not talking about them. Flavius is right to ask for expanded information before something is put into the main article, and to request that information. The recognition by other groups looks well cited, the papers give researcher, year, but some give the journal, title, some don't. ] 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Removed the following from further reading because it is impossible to find and its outdated or near impossible to find: {{Cite journal |last=Morgan |first=Dylan A. |title=Scientific Assessment of NLP |journal=Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register |series=Spring |year=1993 |volume=1993 |ref=none}} --] (]) 09:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Greg, it seems that promoters are behaving pseudoscientifically. They seem to be placing the burden on scientists to prove NLP works. Not only that, but they want to take each minor study, and work their own thesis (AKA pov) that NLP is actually supported by science. I don't mind discussing it, but really if you want to be conclusive, all you have to do is go to the conclusions of the reviewers (overviewers). Your own conclusions are completely inappropriate. Remember NPOV states that the article should not include your own work. If you want to state that your own review negates the reviews of the other scientists then really you should not be editing. ] 08:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


:This has been discussed in the past in ]. The consensus was to replace any citations with citations to Heap. But that was already done and Morgan isn't used, so I agree removing it from Further reading is fine. ] (]) 11:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Greg, Headley's stance is consistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence and the consensus of scientific opinion. All of the literature reviews on NLP that I have seen (and that are quoted in the article) arrive at the position that Headley is advancing. We are treading well-worn paths and performing our own literature review or meta-analyses is entirely inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. My point to FT2 was that if (s)he is going to cite research s(he) should provide full, well-formed citations. Nothing more. I apologise if my response in any way indicated that the "jury was still out" on NLP. I refer you to this exhaustive literature review on EMDR because (a) it is online; (b) EMDR is often claimed by the NLP community as being derived from NLP; (c) NLP (specifically VK dissociation) is mentioned; (d) it is illustrative of how pseudoscience and bunkum becomes institutionalised; (e) you will find many of the NLP proponents tactics regarding unfavourable scientific review coming also from EMDR proponents; and (d) it clearly explains the problem of substantiation and evidence regarding therapeutic interventions. See http://www.drexel.edu/academics/coas/psychology/papers/herbertscience.pdf. ] 08:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like it... These were the Heap papers:
:: --] (]) 13:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


== Really bad sentence ? ==
Hello again Flavius. Yes, EMDR and indeed elements of EFT and other such pseudoscientific confections are closely associated with NLP. I was thinking earlier, that actually one of the most telling signs for NLP's pseudoscientificness is the theories (and yes they do talk theory) and hypotheses they propose. Not only are many of them completely conflicting but they are often on the perifery of science and have been debunked. Actually, I would like to look more at the EMDR literature as it is another really interesting (the eyes have it) kind of pseudoscience. Anyway, I'm glad you have an understanding of science. I think you can expect a sockpuppet label pretty soon though. Every other science savvy editor here has got the sockpuppet label so far (apart from VoiceOfAll). How does he do it?:)] 12:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


"NLP posits that consciousness can be divided into conscious and unconscious components".
Hi again Flavius. I believe you have hit on an extremely enlightening article. Perhaps I have become too accustomed to NLP to see it's pseudoscientific novelty, but this article about EMDR really does offer a fresh perspective.
Seriously?

] 04:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose I should get straight to how it relates to this article. The research supporting EMDR is as the clinicians say - superficial. It is interesting how they present it as a kind of cost-benefit ratio, with all the benefit going to the charlatans and the cost going to the client and the field of clinical psychotherapy. I can see more about why they are so troubled by the mantra of eclecticism. Its almost like that word "holistic".

The collection of trauma fixing techniques is really very telling and reminiscent of Dianetics (which grew mostly out of the claim to remove traumas). I did attend a newsgroup that actually claimed to do power therapies such as EFT, and they were as deluded as Dianetics proponents even to the extent that reading the word "cancer" could give you that illness. Basically, the reason it spreads is due to the neurotic perspectives that it fosters. The same could be said of NLP and its use of "negative energy deflection shields" that people place around themselves to deflect negative energies (a wholly pseudoscientific idea due to energy never physically being negative anyhow).

The excuses for NLP and EFT and Dianetics seem to be very similar. They all adhere to the notion that cures can be obtained fast, but also be undone fast. This is not a notion that is recognized in any other kind of therapy. You tap on a meridian (or change a submodality or reframe) and you are done. Then someone comes along and undoes it and you have to start again.

The decision of the APA is troubling considering how pseudo these kind of techniques are (troubling according to Eisner, and Lilienfield amongst others). Anyway, this is a good comparison, and has certainly clarified things for me. Certainly it seems that NLP is just as, if not more so pseudoscientific. As NLP is more popular as a self help technique, it also seems to be introducing the public to pseudoscience and a reinforcing a wide range of popular misconceptions. Regards ] 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:Quick replies:
* Flavius - When you are faced with a huge mountain of information there is a limit to what one can type. Your point is well taken, and insofar as if this was the actual wikipedia page it would be cited differently, I agree. However, I am a shortage of manpower, and you will have to look up some of the research for yourself to double check its quality. My purpose in posting that information is to demonstrate that there is in fact widespread use of, and positive views on, NLP, by credible bodies, and that the present research grossly misrepresents the field. In many cases the academic papers were published but I had not typed a formal location. They are none the less traceable and can therefore meet ] for verifiability. Despite this, some I have added sources regardless. The non research uses, which are arguably the more important since they are evidence that NLP is used ''in practice'', are all 100% cited. That is all.
* Second, have you or anyone else, anyone noticed that certain editors are trying to ignore them as fast as possible, with wide generalizations, rather than investigating those which are sourced? There's enough of them, and if you cared you could find citations and abstracts for the rest. ] 10:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:::A quick reply of my own... and I see you've just written what I was going to say FT2....
:::I find it quite disconcerting how unwilling Headley et al are to even discuss the science supporting NLP.
:::And FT2, thank you for the time you've put into this. ] 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Again Greg, from the research presented (including that part which is presented on the alternative research page) NLP is scientifically unsupported. I really believe it is not my part to discuss evidence that experts such as Heap, Sharpley, Morgan, Lilienfeld, Singer, Drenth, Levelt, and a good many more there and to be added, have already discussed with the conclusion that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscience. Perhaps you will hear a different view from someone else, but it is already clear that NLP is pseudoscientific from theory to results to excuses. Regards ] 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Disconcerting but not suprising. Did you know that a lot of web geeks used to play 'dungeons and dragons' when they were kids and now see the web as some kind of substitute game. 'Really', 'actually', 'mostly' I suspect they don't really care about the article at all. Just hanging out under a bridge sort-of-thing ] 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

== NLP not a science? What about behavioral psychology? What about "Human Development", Social Science, and Medicine? ==

The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences." It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page, and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics. The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.) They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works. If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change. The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.

The editors of this fine 💕 (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists. ( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.) Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.

One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.

When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)

Recently, for the first time, a science journal has published a series of articles in which a number of leading practitioners agreed that the abuse of a child has profound affects upon the mental health of the adult they grow up to be. For thirty or forty years, this fact was obvious to the clinicians and therapists and only now has it come out because of the "collapse of the ((mental)) health system". At the last minute, apparently, it's time to get real. If this single idea gets more support, and after the usual years of nattering and peer reviews find it indeed true, then things will have to change. The first thing that might change for the better is the American judicial system which holds that the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a form of malingering. The Shrinks sold out all of the accused in the 1970's and the prisons have filled up with "criminals" suffering from one of the many disorders and psychoses found in that three-lettered big book.

For those who want to debunk NLP as "non-scientific" ask them to describe the science in advanced physics. Note that most of the verbage in a science that gave us the nuclear age was, and is still, largely only theoretical. As are most of the other cutting-edge and rapidly emerging sciences. And this is a "hard science", not a "soft science" like most of the other disiplines we call science which are not much more than huge collections of theoretical exercises.

My criteria is, "does it work?" when applied in the clinic, and can it be repeated by others with predictable results. If the answer is yes, then it's probably a science (a form of academic politics). If it doesn't work, one stops trying to use it, and goes on to something else. And that's why we don't hear much about some of the "human development" studies.

For those who use the pet phase "cult", I ask them only to stop shooting themselves in the foot with that word. Go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and find out it means merely "a small group." And we know that all science is emerging from a "cult" -- a small group of people -- because the general public, largely semi-literate and poorly educated can't even handle their native language, let alone the jargon that attempts to clarify the esoteric meanings of many scientific insights.

I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.

Thank you all for being there,ignoramuses, nitpickers, mismatchers, and skeptics alike. Without your nagging, we might just sail off the edge of the world.

W.H. Bowart
Author, Operation Mind Control


Hi W.H.Boward. Thanks. That reminds me of a criticism I read from a French author about NLP's loaded language. Loaded language is something that is commonly used in cults and organizations that use mind control . It is something that makes it hard to recover from cults. Its not some kind of special mind power thing, its just a way to take someone's view of themself or view of humanity, and dirty it enough to put undue fear and restriction into them. Its also a way to put fear into your peers. "This person is a mismatcher, they do not fully see things our way!" And relating to pseudoscience, I wonder how skeptical Einstein was about the nazi promotion of the "sciences" of phrenology, eugenics and physiognomy? ] 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::Hello WHBoward. I think a little more reality with your map might help. Nuclear theories have led to nuclear fission reactors powering whole countries and economies. Comparing that will NLP is somewhat of a joke. Also, surely your view of humanity is quite negative. You speak of the common people unable to handle their native language and unable to comprehend science. Funny, because I grew up in the country and most natives speak exactly their own language. The language belongs to them, and no amount of Hubbardesque conspiracy writing will convince them otherwise. What's more, they know snakeoil flim flam when they hear it. You see it on the TV on an infomercial, and you know for sure its just garbage. Actually, the people going for cults and NLP are actually fairly similar and have a similarly good level of education. But what they also have in common, is that they are often shiftless and insecure. When I came to this artile I thought cult meant personality cult rather than destructive or nuisance cult. You and other proNLPers here are convincing me otherwise. ] 05:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::Boward's post addressed with inline commentary ] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC):
:'The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences."'

::This is problematic for several reasons: (1) it is nothing more than a bold assertion. Do you have any evidence -- in the form of peer reviewed research reults -- that demonstrates the validity of NLPs eye accessing cues theory? (2) it appears that you are operating from an idiosyncratic (and self-serving) definition of 'science'; (3) there is no such field as 'behavioral psychology'. Psychology is -- by definition -- the study of behavior so the phrase behavioral psychology' is redundant not unlike 'brain neurology'.

:::Hi Flavius - just for the record there was a high behavioural focus in psychology (watson/skinner) and psychologists (at least in the 90s) mainly called them "behaviourists", though they were also understood as behavioural psychologists. They still differentiate different forms of psychology, such as Cognitive Psychology, etc. I'm not sure if Boward had something specific in mind, just saying there is behavioural psych (look it up online if you have any doubts). ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page,'

::This is troubling. It is a form of ad hominem and it is redolent of the Scientology notion of 'Suppressive Person' in terms of function i.e. automatically discounting all criticism and defining an "out group".

:::It would be better not to label anyone skeptic/critic/proNLP/antiNLP/supporter/neutral/etc. At the moment there are people discouraging reading the research with similar arguments ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics.'

::This is another bold assertion without any substantiation. From my reading of the history of science this is an entirely false assertion. The common trait of all of the great scientists is scpeticism i.e. a tendency to question everything and not accept it as true without due evidence and explanation. Albert Einstein's general relativity can be understood as an outgrowth of a sceptical disposition towards Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation. The work of Galileo Galilei represents a scepticsm and challenge of the Aristotlian concpeption of the natural world. Nicolaeus Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system was a direct challenge to the Ptolemaic geocentric view. When James Clark Maxwell formulated his now famous (eponymous) equations he corrected Ampere's law. In formulating the germ theory Louis Pasteur challenged the prevailing notion of spontaneous generation. I can list many more such examples. All of the preceding scientists were highly sceptical else they would not have been prompted to demonstrate the inadequacy of an existing theory via argumentation and/or experimentation. Can you demonstrate -- with reference to actual examples of scientific deiscovery -- that this is not the case?

:::Agreed - skeptical enquiry is a great trait for a scientist. Cynical is not. ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.)'

::No, not necessarily. Michael Faraday -- for example -- was a great scientist though he was not visionary. Faraday was distinguished as a brilliant scientist by his inquisitive nature and ability to devise ingenious experiments to test his hypotheses. 'Vision' is less associated with science and more with echnology. Scientists generally don't labour with a clear and specific conception of the future in mind. Also, this 'matcher'/'mismatcher' dichotomy is intellectually (and epistemologically) bankrupt. The universe is not that simple.

:'They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works.'

::No, that is how pseudoscientists operate. Scientists formulate a hypothesis and then design an experiment to attempt to falsify that hypothesis. This is a truism amongst scientists. If I formulated the hypothesis that 'all swans are white' I wouldn't test that by seeking white swans. Instead I'd seek black swans. Finding white swans would not have the intended effect of proving my hypothesis.

:::Well.. they have an idea, they elaborate and build it to fit all the facts they know of, then they (and others) try to falsify it. ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::You don't appear to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. ] 09:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Vanilla Flavour, What are you saying I don't understand? Please be clearer on where you're pulling this from ] 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change.'

::In the absence of scpeticism science would stagnate. Scientists publish their results and methodology for the purpose of critical review and reproduction. Other scientists attempt to reproduce published results -- and thereby grow the body of scientific knowledge -- because they are of a scpetical disposition, they do not blindly accept the results of a novel piece of research. Can you cite any advances in science that took place as a result of uncritical accpetance of a result?

:'The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.'

::This in no way establishes NLP as a science. Also, it appears that you are operating from an impoverished map of the universe. You appear to be conflating 'science' with 'technology'. Also, the concepts that define the traditional demarcation between science and pseudoscience are derived from the works of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos. Central to the meaning of science are the characteristics of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation'. Lakatos also distinguised science by its 'progressive research program'. NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, it has little if any predictive power, and its research program is degenerating therefore it is pseudoscience. (I can elaborate on this matter if necessary).

:'The editors of this fine 💕 (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists.'

::This attitude is symptomatic of a degenerating research program (which is a characteristic of pseudoscience). A research program is deemed 'progressive' if it at least sometimes produces new predictions that are confirmed. It is deemed as degenerating if it fails to lead to new and confirmed predictions. That is to say, in a progressive research program theoretical predictions successfully anticipate new data. In a degenarting research program the data precedes the theory, there is data "in search of a theory", post hoc explanations abound. An example of this is the addition of the notion of meta-programs to NLP, specifically to 'cognitive strategies'. When it was discovered that individuals with identical strategies presented fundamental differences the notion of meta-programs was postulated to prevent the falsification of the 'cognitive stragetgies' theory (see http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html2/MdMe26.html).

:::Correct me if I'm wrong, but in science, if at any time the evidence falsifies a theory, the theory is modified and it is then, once again, tested. Sometimes a theory can not be modified, or there are so many add-ons and exceptions that the theory becomes unlikely, and if it's a strongly held theory there may be a paradigm shift. Anyway... I would have thought that the discovery of something the strategy model didn't account for and an extension to the theory would be quite normal, don't you think? ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Lakatos addresses this concern. Lakatos conceptualises a "research program" as being comprised of a "hard core" of very general hypotheses and a "protective belt" of specific auxiliary hypotheis. According to Lakatos, experimentation and falsification is directed at the protective belt because only it is comprised of sufficiently specific hypothesis that are capable of being tested. Meta-programs are not a more specific form of what already existed in NLP, they are entirely disconnected from everything else in NLP. Empirical testing amongst the first generation NLPers showed that strategies had absolutely no predictive power: people with the same strategy for skill X produced widely varying results. If NLPs theory of cognitive strategies were itself revised then we could conceivably regard that as the addition of auxiliary hypothesis to the protective belt. However, Leslie Cameron-Bandler instead postulated another component of the NLP model of the mind in an ''ad hoc'' fashion. This is an entirely evasive manouveur designed to illegitimately save cognitive strategies from falsification. Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist? I haven't seen any. Have you? ] 10:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::This is a very interesting question. First let me thank you for your specific answer addressing my question, I appreciate it. Now to the question "Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist?" - interesting because my NLP training says "No", my Psychology training says "Yes"... which is rather counter-intuitive :). The NLP school I went to does not subscribe to metaprograms mainly because they classify people as a personality type. While there is value in that because (once classified) you can then use some standard responses and processes for that type, it also removes the value of calibrating specifically to an individual and working with whatever is presented (ie. metaprograms can be a case of "work out which they are, then administer process" rather than dynamically interactive). My psych background involved alot of personality tests where this kind of classification was very common, and the scoring on different personality traits was linked to competency requirements in jobs to determine probably job-personality match (in conjunction with other measurements from resume, ability tests, assessment centres, etc). Most occupational psychologists are going to say that we do have personality traits based on the "Big 5" that were found many years back. Metaprograms are sometimes linked directly to the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicators). Also, the BPS has endorsed some personality tests based on metaprograms (). An ongoing disagreement between NLP and Psych on metaprograms would _probably_ be the variability of personality traits - NLP argues they can be changed, psych argues they are relatively fixed (though as I said, I haven't trained much in metaprograms). ] 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.)'

::The roots of NLP are well documented, refer to http://users.pandora.be/merlevede/nlpfaqc3.htm and Grinder's 'Whispering in the Wind'. I'm quite familiar with NLP and its history, there is no evidence for your wild claim.

:'Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.'

::The above sentence is unparseable, i.e. it is ungrammatical. Also, many of the 'misnmatchers'/sceptics such as myself have had NLP training and are familiar with the primary NLP works (Magic I&II, Patterns I&II, Tranceformations and 'Frogs into Princes').

:'One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.'

::A paragraph earlier you characterised Milton Erickson as a "brilliant" mind. Erickson was educated in the North American University system, gained a degree in medicine and a post-graduate qualification in pscychiatry. He also practiced. How is it that your suspicion does not extend to Erickson. Similarly, both Grinder and Bandler were educated in North American universities. Also, the "subtext" of the above is that your behavior prompted the foremost specialist in psychiatry" to exclain "This country has gone mad". David Icke (the man that believes that amongst others George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson are shape shifting reptiles) wasn't part of this conference was he? Who was this unnamed 'foremost specialist in psychiatry'?

:'When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)'

::How is chronic depression "transitory"? The symptoms and phenomenology of mental illnesses such as depression, paranoid-schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and phobia are largely consistent within the same person and between different people (and even different cultures) and they are clustered consistently. You appear to be alluding to the common NLP "article of faith" that menatal illness is a nominalisation (in a somewhat incoherent manner). There is no evidence that mental illness is merely a nominalisation.

:::Headley said some stuff about nominalisations and theories contradicting NLP and I enquired about what had been said. He wasn't able to answer, but perhaps you know of some stuff I can read about nominalisations (outside of NLP theory). Certainly I would say that some mental illnesses are approached as a disease that someone has, rather than a cognitive process, and that that will affect how it is treated. ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Greg. OK its time to do some linguistics explanation: Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that NLP has lived up to its many promises of providing magical solutions for ailing mankind. But there is more to explain in terms of erroneous concepts:

So much of it is built on untested hypotheses and is supported by totally inadequate data. Additionaly, because, by Chomskys own admission, the concept of deep structure remains an untested hypothesis. So we have assumptions built on assumptions. This is extremely inappropriate and NLP being pseudoscientific.

Bandler and grinder seem to have introduced terms and ideas of their own that are not part of the accepted body of linguistics. Nominalization is a grammatical transformation but according to Bandler and Grinder, nominalizations constitute linguistic distortions. There is no evidence of any kind of this being the case. Works on linguistics make no mention of distortions arising from nominalizations. The same goes for deletions. There is no mention whatsoever in linguistics of this taking place.

They also make mistakes about nominalizations and vagueness. Vagueness can come from nominalizations, but it is really no way the universal that they make out.

All of NLP’s linguistics concepts have the same problems. This is why linguistics books do not have a mention of them. The same is true for neurolinguistics. Actually, neurolinguistics can be defined as the study of speech defects. So NLP could be defined as the study of programming speech defects:) ] 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks Headley, I thought you had something more though, you implied some research. Remember NLP is not built on Chomskey, it's built on modeling linguistic patterns. They happened to fit with Chomskey's theories (which you say have not been tested). AFAIK linguistics do not judge whether there is a problem due to deletion - they just note that there is some unknown information that must actually be there. It is in practical use that we explore what the person has placed in that unknown spot (by asking what specifically, how, who, etc). Grinder and Bandler never talk about universal laws, just patterns that are worth exploring. I'd really like to know the nominalisation issue, I wonder if your representation is all there is to it - perhaps it really is that simple?. THanks. ] 12:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, I get the impression you wish to ignore the writings and claims of Bandler and Grinder. They make claims, and linguists state that it is simplistic nonsense and only there for promotional/confusion value. Bandler, Grinder, Dilts and others talk about universal application. They state that it is about form and not content (all form and no content) and therefore can be applied to everything. Now, in my book, that is a universally applied panacea. It is also the view of many of the critics already cited. The nominalizations issue is really that simple. B+G get it wrong throughout, and then claim to build a pragmatic method on it's back. What is happening really though, is they know that big names sell (Chomsky, Perls, Huxley etc) and they present those names together with a pseudo-scientific psychobabblefest with a new age/magical facade. People buy into the cult. The smart ones work out what is happening to them and exit the cult. ] 13:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Headley, you are either confused or being confusing. We weren't talking about whether NLP has universal application - you said that vagueness was not a universal characteristic of nominalisations, and said that NLP teaches that it is. I responded simply to that (NLP does not teach that a deletion, distortion, or generalisation is a problem, rather that it MAY indicate an impoverished map - this is different from it ALWAYS indicating an impoverished map). Further, linguists are qualified to state if a linguistic theory is simplistic, but rather unqualified to judge that ''"it is only there for promotional/confusion value"''. I see you've added some more judgements about mentioning Perls, Chomsky as strategy to sell, a total POV from you that discounts NLP's beginings. ] 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, as always, I am writing from other people's perspective. I was quoting Levelt and other linguists and their expert view of NLP's blunders. You seem to be giving your own biased interpretation based on your desire to deny anything that nonproNLPers write. ] 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP nominalizations come from a debunked (even during the 60s) linguistic relativism perspective. That should be clear enough to anyone that NLP proponents are just taking a bunch of jargon and hyping it up to an unsubstantiated pragmatic method (that fails). ] 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::That's a start in the explanation. Do you know of any psych research on the use of either deliberate nominalisation, or deliberate denominalisation? I'm far more interested in the psych research of what works than in the linguistic background. Greg ] 07:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'Recently, for the first time, a science journal has published a series of articles in which a number of leading practitioners agreed that the abuse of a child has profound affects upon the mental health of the adult they grow up to be. For thirty or forty years, this fact was obvious to the clinicians and therapists and only now has it come out because of the "collapse of the ((mental)) health system". At the last minute, apparently, it's time to get real. If this single idea gets more support, and after the usual years of nattering and peer reviews find it indeed true, then things will have to change. The first thing that might change for the better is the American judicial system which holds that the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a form of malingering. The Shrinks sold out all of the accused in the 1970's and the prisons have filled up with "criminals" suffering from one of the many disorders and psychoses found in that three-lettered big book.'

::What science journal? Can you provide a citation?

:'For those who want to debunk NLP as "non-scientific" ask them to describe the science in advanced physics.'

::NLP isn't merely unscientific, it doesn't work any better than placebo. What topic in advanced physics do you want an explanation of?

:::There is lots of research both for and against, with arguments over the quality of the research, whether it tested the NLP process effectively, etc. NLP must go much further if it wishes to encourage consistent results (which may support or not support what they're testing) ... inconsistent results are not helpful at all in improving a field. The psychological research is not helpful at this stage and NLP practitioners, rather than helping psychologists, are using internal NLP methods of sensory acuity and modeling. It would be useful for NLP to work with psychology. ] 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg. You are ignoring what scientists have said since the 80s, that the little support that NLP gets is explained by influences other than NLP. So NLP itself fails in those cases. The majority of studies show NLP does not work. More recently, scientists explain that extrapolating success from minor studies (as shown on FT2's effort) is no evidence at all for efficacy. ] 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'Note that most of the verbage in a science that gave us the nuclear age was, and is still, largely only theoretical.'

::The fact that the nuclear age actually exists and has artifacts (eg. nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, medical imaging, radiotherapy, atomic clocks, radiocarbon dating, geiger counters) makes it plain that nuclear physics is not 'largely only theoretical'.

:'As are most of the other cutting-edge and rapidly emerging sciences.'

::NLP is neither scientific (according to the criteria of falsifiability, disconfirmation and progressive research program) nor is it cutting-edge (it is based on linguistic, psychological and neurological theories from the 1970s, when Bandler was studying at university).

:'And this is a "hard science", not a "soft science" like most of the other disiplines we call science which are not much more than huge collections of theoretical exercises.'

::It's not science. You've yet to establish NLP as a science let alone a 'hard science'.

:'My criteria is, "does it work?" when applied in the clinic, and can it be repeated by others with predictable results. If the answer is yes, then it's probably a science (a form of academic politics). If it doesn't work, one stops trying to use it, and goes on to something else. And that's why we don't hear much about some of the "human development" studies.'

::How do you know that when NLP "works" in the clinic you aren't merely witnessing the effect of non-specific factors?

:::Absolutely. I mean, I'm using an outcome rating scale I've licensed from a psychology company, but it only measures outcomes. How do I know WHAT SPECIFICALLY I did that made the difference. It is one thing to know something is effective overall, and another challenge to determine which elements are necessary and sufficient for the result (a challenge also noted as part of NLP modeling). Sometimes and for some people the necessary element might simply be "belief"... (ala the placebo!).

::::This is the purpose of matched controls. The use of matched controls that are administered a placebo serve to allow us to separate the specific factors of the treatment from the non-specific factors and to determine if a novel treatment is more effective than placebo. The absence of matched controls is why clinical reports are merely a form of anecdote and hence are unreliable. This is difficult for NLP practitioners to accept. ] 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Hi vanillus. When you are using multiple different processes for change (including rapport, unconscious signals and calibration, intention & consequences, well-formed outcomes, 6 step reframes & parts negotiations, as well as standard meta-model violations, spatial anchoring, etc - how do you replace one of those with a placebo? The idea, as nice as it sounds and as useful as it would be, simply doesn't translate into this kind of context. And if you work with a whole control group, you get what I describe above. This is the crux of the researcher-practitioner divide, you may have heard of it. ] 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::My name is Flavius. The Vanillus is just a pun because Flavius looks and sounds like flavor. This is a non-problem. "apport, unconscious signals and calibration, intention & consequences, well-formed outcomes, 6 step reframes & parts negotiations, as well as standard meta-model violations, spatial anchoring" all comprise the treatment, call it X. We want to know whether X is more effective than placebo. Initially we aren't concerned with what elements of X are effective and which aren't -- to proceed otherwise would be presumptuous. In a single-blinded study with matched controls we administer X to a treatment group and we get the control group to tap their knee repeatedly, rub their stomach and repeat "Richard Bandler is a genius" ten times. Then we compare the results. ] 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I know and agree, I was arguing exactly that a few weeks back. Most NLP studies rather than taking NLP generally, have focussed on using just one section (in the 80s that was eye-accessing cues). I only know of the one (Mendslitch?) outcome based study (including control group) that worked with NLP processes openly as you suggest. It is quite possible that eye-accessing cues are insignificant and if so they should be dumped... though the overall combination is still effective. One problem with outcome based research like this is that there may be just one key pattern that's effective (take for instance the original meta-model, which is almost identical to the cognitive distortions of CBT). Headley a month ago described my explanation of NLP as sounding like CBT, he suggested I study CBT instead... perhaps that was my specific NLP training. Anyway, interesting. Thanks Flavius. ] 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:'For those who use the pet phase "cult", I ask them only to stop shooting themselves in the foot with that word. Go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and find out it means merely "a small group." And we know that all science is emerging from a "cult" -- a small group of people -- because the general public, largely semi-literate and poorly educated can't even handle their native language, let alone the jargon that attempts to clarify the esoteric meanings of many scientific insights.'

::The word cult has a distinct meaning when used by cult experts such as Lifton, Singer and Hassan. Your post could readily be characterised as semi-literate, uninformed and delusional.

:'I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.'

::I don't think so. Many people -- including myself -- that are critical of NLP commenced its study without any preconceptions and biases and parted with many thousands of dollars attending seminars and purchasing video/audio tapes. A younger -- more naive -- version of me was drawn by the promises and claims of NLP only to find after many years and many dollars that the emperor has no clothes and that I had been duped. I never felt "threatened" or challenged by any aspect of NLP. I found that it doesn't work (the expensive way) and I had the courage to admit I had been deceived and swindled out of my money and proceeded to extricate myself from the NLP 'community'. Many NLPers assume that its not working because they haven't understood something and keep returning to seminars and buying more tapes and books hoping that it will eventually click. My investigations -- after I grieved my loss of time and money and resolved the implications to my self-identity if being taken for a ride -- confirmed my suspicions. ] 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::My own experience has been very positive, though I have to admit that I work heavily with the metamodel and 6 step reframes (with all the other principles as support - chunking up/down (intention), focus in time, ecology, rapport, anchoring, triple description). I've found this effective (none of this thinking I didn't understand something or spending more money on courses). Though I'm yet to build that same confidence (including anecdotal support or non-support) for some other 'popular' patterns like collapsing anchors, swish, etc. ] 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::: NLP can be used to model people effectively entering a cult or successfully leave a cult (eg. Charles Figley says that Steven Hassan uses some NLP processes (eg. change personal history and double dissociation process, VK/D) to help people recover from cults). The technology is amoral in that respect. That's why ecological considerations and checking for consequences of any changes is so important. Many NLP trainers consider the meta model to be an antidote to mind control allowing people to free themselves from indoctrination of political or religious organisation by challenging some of the classic examples of ] put forward by these organisations. Notice how many linguists (Chomsky, Lakoff, etc) have also people anti-doctrination advocates. --] 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: Hi Comaze. Chomsky and Lakoff are not NLP advocates. Steve Hassan does not primarily use NLP to help people recover from cults. The metamodel is actually used in a cultish way in newsgroups. Just as the author chappy above used the loaded language (missmatcher) people also use the metamodel to demand clarity in everything people say, to literally shout them down by claiming they are unclear. Then they take a self help pseudoscience tome out of their pocket and give a sermon. Actually, if it were appropriate to post the delusional nonsense NLP devotees talk about on newsgroups, this article would be both hillarious and very worrying. ] 11:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::: A skillful NLP practitioner knows that the meta model is used on a need to know basis for information gathering. If someone is being very vague, then it is perfectly fine to ask direct specifying questions, such as, "What definition of cults are you using, HeadleyDown?" I address your questions about Hassan above (it was directly from Charles Figley a very well respected scientist with excellent reputation). Grinder (Whispering, 2001) acknowledges Chomsky as the single biggest contributor to NLP epistemology. Lakoff was also quoted directly in Structure of Magic Vol.1 (1975) and references in Patterns (1977-78) but is not as important as Chomsky. --] 12:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Hello there... so "You create your own reality." Not something I subscribe to... what do you want to argue about that phrase? "You create your own map" (subjective experience) .... that is fair enough. ] 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

==Meta Programs==
:I fail to see the relevance of (pignotti) so I'll focus on matcher/mismatcher idea. As far as Matcher/mismatcher categorisation of people is NOT valid in NLP. These categories originate from metaprograms or MBTI -- both content categorisation models. Some 3rd generation "NLP" trainers have uncritically imported metaprograms into NLP. Grinder is intolerant of this kind of logic -- labelling someone as a "matcher/mismatcher" is epistemologically dodgy. --] 02:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


::Excellent, Comaze. I love to see pseudoscientists disagreeing with each other. It reminds me (after a jolly good transderivational search) that NLPers are not completely hopeless. ] 02:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:Dave, To be more specific I was referring to the disagreement between John Grinder (and the trainers who agree that metaprograms do not belong in NLP) and for example, Leslie-Cameron Bandler who was responsible for developing and including meta programs in her version of NLP. Here's an example, "Meta-programs are content categories." ... &quot;I consider it to be less than professional to engage in these so-called meta-programs. They're substantive. They are impositions of other people's belief systems on yours. And I will not engage in that." (John Grinder, 1986, p.238) --] 03:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

::Hi Dave. I'm all for representing the differences in NLP in some way.. they really SHOULD be in there, there are strong differences in opinions, etc. ] 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed. ] 13:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


:''Just to remind folks, there is now a page citing the other side of ''']''' which some editors seem to feel does not exist. Given the amount of vitriol and POV suppression, breaches of policy, and personal attacks and remarks, this link is reposted so that all editors who wish, can independently and neutrally review a partial list of research and citations "as is" and consider their own opinion, in accordance with ]'s view that good quality information should be able to stand and speak almost for itself. (Also, so that it doesn't become deluged by spam or apparent sock-puppet posts, this link will also be moved to the bottom of this page for the next while). ] 20:26, 12 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 quickly reviewed FT2's truncated abstracts and citations and I offer the following observations: (a) at least some are not sourced from reputable, peer-reviewed journals; and (b) most of the summaries are replete with vague and imprecise quantificational language (eg. "most helpful", "positive correlation" (magnitude?), "partially positive effects", "strongly related", "marked improvement", "positive reduction", "deeper trance", "substantially", "very helpful", "enormous changes", "very many of the people" etc.). The use of such vague language is evidence of methodological defect. I have reviewed some of the cited literature and I too am of the view that NLP is largely -- if not entirely -- without substance, ineffective (beyond non-specific factors) and without any scientific basis. flavius 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:In principle you are right, and doubtless some will be found unreliable or not as well documented as you would hope. I'd be amazed if it wasn't. Bear in mind what you have is essentially highly compressed abstracts, often of long papers, so you should expect some raw data to be missing, as see my comment above. My purpose in that page was simple. HeadleyDown and others stated they were unaware (ie, ignorant) of any research into NLP nor any credible use. There is now a list of prima facie what appears to be purported credible research and use. The use is confimed by links. The research listed will now need more reading to validate the details and small print, and ascertain which appears credible and which does not.

Look FT2, your misrepresentation of my words is consistent with your misrepresentational comments on the alternative promotion research page. I have indeed seen the research you present, and it is simply a small part of the larger review. There were other papers there that I simply glossed over because they are simply promotional NLP pseudoscience. It was actually quite entertaining to read through them (especially that Ausie Doctor with the ponytail). But the fact remains; After months of the rigorous overview and review research being presented on the article, the NLP promoters are still trying to find ways to remove/censor them (which they have actually spent months physically doing). Certainly what I originally said holds true: The scientific view is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, and the view that NLP is pseudoscience is highly significant. ] 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:An editor with credibility would respond: "Okay, yes, there are credible sounding researches. Now let's look and see how reliable they are". Then again, an editor with credibility would have spotted the flawed and misrepresentative presentation of the existing research and gone looking for other research instead of accepting a partisan view, too. An editor with credibility would have pulled morgan out, read dietrich carefully and checked the BPS's real view both online and in other ways. Nobody else did. So in a way, it doesn't surprise me. (Thats not personal as it applies to several editors many of whom made claims to "know" what the "truth" was, or who stated they wanted a hard "scientific" line. Hard science means being a skeptic - of both sides. And checking - both sides. A scientist is a sceptic and considers flaws even in his own work)

Any credible editor would accept the scientific fact and realise that scientists do actually do research on this subject. Certainly neutral editors would not snip the last negative words off a paragraph, or place their own unsupported views within the article multiple times out of desperation because they want to promote their belief system/hobby/business ] 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:Even so, the wording seems a little ingenuous, flavius. ''"At least some are not sourced from reputable..."''. Thats a sleight of hand wording: it means that if a significant number appear suggestive, one can still say "well ''some are not''". May I have your comment on those that are? Given that I've at least bothered to try and source information and check references, whilst apparently, most here have not? ] 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:Even so, the wording seems a little ingenuous, flavius. ''"At least some are not sourced from reputable..."''. Thats a sleight of hand wording: it means that if a significant number appear suggestive, one can still say "well ''some are not''". May I have your comment on those that are? Given that I've at least bothered to try and source information and check references, whilst apparently, most here have not? ] 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
::Do you mean disingenuous? If so that was not my intent, I did not have the time when I made that remark to be precise. Here is a partial list with my comments:

Forster,C., Jansen, A., Margenrot ,L, Unterberger, G., (1993)
"Medias of psychotherapy. What conditions are decisive for rapport?"
College of Hildesheim-Holzminden, Germany, FB Sozialpädagogik
Comment: Unpublished paper

Macroy, T.D. (1978) "Linguistic surface structures in family interaction"
Utah State University
Comment: Unpublished paper

Cheek, D., (1981) "Awareness of Meaningful Sounds Under General Anaesthesia."
in Theoretical and Clinical aspects of Hypnosis, Symposium Specialists,
Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Dilts, R. and Epstein, T., (1995) Dynamic Learning, Meta, Capitola, California
(reports Loiselle (1985) and Malloy (1989))
Comment: Publsihed in book, Loiselle (1985) and Malloy (1989) not published
in any journal index by Medline

Acosta JK, Levenson RL Jr. (2002) "Observations from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center in New York City, Part II:
Theoretical and clinical considerations.",Int J Emerg Ment Health. pring;4(2):119-26.
Comment: Not a report of a study but merely a set of suggestions for for emergency field medicine.

Frank (1997)
Comment: Not indexed my Medline

Genser-Medlitsch, Martina; Schütz, Peter: "Does Neuro-Linguistic psychotherapy have effect?"
ÖTZ-NLP, Wiederhofergasse 4, A-1090, Wien, Austria, 1997.
Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA (1992) "Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control."
Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32.
Comment: Methodologically flawed, "A matched control group was not available, and follow-up was unfortunately
not possible."

Swack, J.A. (1992) "A study of initial response and reversion rates of subjects treated with the allergy technique."
Anchor Point 6, 3:1-10
Comment: Anchor Point is an NLP magazine and is not indexed by Medline

Unterberger Ulbrich (1998)
Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Weerth (1992)
Comment: Not indexed by Medline

Baxter (1994)
Comment: Not indexed by Medline

::If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation. This explains the imprecise language I mentioned earlier. I conjecture that most (80%+) of your citations are either not indexed by Medline, methodologically flawed or mispresented. ] 04:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yo FT2. You want ingenuous, you have a look at your own hype page:) ] 03:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again FT2. I just took another look at your "promote pseudoscience - dismiss science" research page and it looks like the biggest bunch of fraudulent nonsense I have seen on wikipedia. Not only is it there to promote a logically and intellectually fraudulent psuedoscience (NLP) but it namedrops all these scientific looking names, but none of the journals/papers are mentioned. For all we know, they all come from the "Xenu Journal of Pseudoscience". I also made comments, and I expect them to remain there (this is wikipedia where anyone can write something). If you remove my comments, I will restore them. ] 03:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Just reading your 2nd sentence and your labeling of the page and it's obvious you're approaching it in an open minded manner - skeptical but not cynical :). Oh... 3rd sentence too - "to promote an intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". You must be the 5th person (or username) who has said "give us the journal names" and I agree we should make really clear the quality of anything quoted on the main page (we should do that with Platt & Morgan too! Wow!). As FT2 responded the other 4 or so times, he's presented some alternatives in order to build a neutral argument with ALL the facts (not having the skeptics discussion group as a primary source) - and IMO to ask all editors to help evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article. Also there are quite a lot of well cited evidence would you care to comment on those, or keep your current agenda? ] 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) p.s That goes for me too... time to start looking at what's good in there and what's not, and bring the good stuff into the article in a representative manner :)

::::The characterisation of NLP as "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience" is the mainstream scientific evaluation of NLP. I expanded some FT2s brief citations into full citations. Most of the one's I expanded refer to obscure journals that aren't even indexed by Medline. Some are so obscure that I couldn't expand them and did an author/keyword search on Medline and failed to locate them. To "evaluate the research fairly so we can make a great article" would constitute original research, which is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. Literature reviews have been performed and they arrive at the view that NLP is "intellectually fraudulent pseudoscience". ] 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Damned if you do, damned if you don't eh? I say we should look at the quality and you say we can't do that, yet you just expanded FT2's stuff to say it was too obscure. All I'm saying is why not do exactly what you did for FT2, with the research currently cited (start with Platt and Morgan). To not do this would be hypocritical. ] (aka 203.*) 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::203.217.56.137. As DaveRight below states you seem to have missed the point. You can look at the research that FT2 cited by all means. Understand though that specialists -- people that know more about the constituent topics (linguistics, neurology, psychopathology, trauma etc.) than you or I -- have reviewed the literature (at least that published in reputable journals) and concluded that it is bunkum. You are pretending that no research scientist is aware of the literature cited by FT2 and that new ground will potentially be broken on Misplaced Pages. This won't happen for at least two reasons: literature reviews have already been conducted and their conclusions are that NLP is unsupported scientificlly; and Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research (even if it is doomed to be still-born). Expanding the citations is not a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. My point in expanding what I could was to show that the journals cited are marginal, not credible, not reputable and hence unreliable. It says much about the marginality of the citations that I couldn't expand some of them ''at all''. FT2 has collected what is largely a bunch of junk research. ] 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Flavius, I made no suggestion at all we should do any original research. I'd like to know whether the Skeptic's Dictionary (etc) is included in your list of citeable research. I am AGREEING that the quality of research is important and that there is stuff there that was not published in research journals. FOr instance, some seems to be research for Psych honours or Masters programs - it seems that by your standards these students should have written a web page instead of done a year or 2 of original research, then they might be worthy of being quoted. ] 09:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::::'FOr instance, some seems to be research for Psych honours or Masters programs - it seems that by your standards these students should have written a web page instead of done a year or 2 of original research, then they might be worthy of being quoted.' How so? Unpublished dissertations have not had circulation amongst peers and have not received the critical scrutiny that papers published in reputable journals receive. I don't understand where you got the idea that I regard only material on the web as worthy of quotation. The negative reviews cited in the NLP article do not appear online. ] 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Hi Flavius. Sorry about that - I made an assumption you were implicitly justifying the current quotes already on the page (like Sanghera, Platt, Morgan, Carrol). I agree that an unpublished dissertation doesn't have critical scrutiny like those published in reputable journals, my main point is they have more scrutiny (and time invested and scientific focus) than many opinion pieces. ] 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello um, 203something. I do believe you are missing the point. FT2 deliberately did not use references in his little research page because it does not look good for his NLP promotion drive. Flavius has made is very clear that FT2 is trying to pull the wool. The fact is, there is a significant scientific view that NLP is a kind of Scientology for the terminally insecure (ie pseudoscientific nonsense). There is something emerging here though. Yourself and FT2, and other NLP promoters are generally taking an anti-science stance. This is also reflected in NLP as a whole, especially in NLP advocate's refusal to face the empirical results of research that state NLP is scientifically unsupported. I think Platt and Morgan are more practitioner views than scientific, though they both have very good credentials - Platt as a respected management training author, and Morgan as a PhD and psychotherapist who prefers direct interaction rather than dubious physiognomy readings. ] 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Splendid, Flavius. I know its hard enough trying to explain to these people what a scientific view is. I work in a research library and still find it hard to find the time to repeat explain things to the NLP promoters. It seems that empirical evidence is not acceptable to those of the promotional persuasion. So well done with the science view explanations. No doubt they will have to be reiterated at a later point and I am sure some re-pasting of your research will be in order. Its good to see people such as yourself making good use of the most neutral and clear view around (independent scientific research). Certainly NLP is pseudoscience from theory to practice. Their fraud does extend beyond the intellectual though. There are a few cases of proposed NLP cancer and deafness cures that have had to be dealt with through litigation. Anyway, your work is much appreciated. ATB ] 06:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:DaveRight, there is a limit to what one person can do. If you, or others, truly were interested in neutrality, you would perhaps have looked up references and helped. ] 16:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
===Medline and existing references===

:In the meantime, flavius, I have two questions regarding your points, which are on the surface reasonable ones. But to test that they are reasonable, a question for you. You stated: "If a medical journal is not indexed by Medline then it is obscure and without reputation". I know medline is an authority in medicine. I know it has many many articles and it's part of the Library of Medicine. What I do ''not'' know or pretend to know is, its criteria and procedures, nor whether it is such an authority that ''every'' journal relevant to hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, psychology or similar that is not indexed is "without reputation", nor that a paper not being indexed by medline makes it suspect. These sound like "puff" -- exaggeration for effect. Could you provide some solid credible sources to confirm whats sound very much like a personal assertation which medline itself probably would not agree is valid? I'd like a solid medical research source that agrees with you, because I find that an incredible statement. My personal guess is that your words are inadvertantly overstated. Can you confirm whether you meant them as I understand you to mean?

::Please refer http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html. Medline is the largest life science and biomedical bibliographic database. Medline indexes many psycological journals. As a rule of thumb it is true that if a journal is not indexed by Medline it is not credible or at least suspect. Further, if it is not indexed by Medline relatvely few experts are likely to have read it and most periodical collections of research libraries will not carry it. Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule its a heuristic that is generally accepted by researchers. If perhaps two or three of your citations were not indexed by Medline and the balance were then your compilation would be respectable. Unfortunately, a pattern emerges in your list of citations. Many -- perhaps most, I haven't checked all of them -- of your citations aren't indexed. So as a body of evidence the citations you provided are lacking: the number of citations that support the efficacy of NLP are numerically small (in comparison to well-accepted clinical interventions); and but they are sourced from unreputable journals. ] 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:Second, in any event, can you answer GregA's query, I assume you have also looked up the citations posed by Headley & Co on medline too. Can you let me know the results? Thanks. ] 15:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::I have looked up some of them. The journal that Drenth (2003) is published in is indexed. Most of the others are books and are not listed (since Medline does not index books). This isn't a problem because the citations are critical reviews rather than novel proposals. Heap (1998), Heap (1989), Lilienfeld (2003), Williams (2000), Salerno (2005), Singer (1999) are books that present literature reviews and critical analysis, i.e. they are a form of meta-analysis (not necessarily in the sense of the formal statistical method) of literature that has already been published and/or notices that there is no evidence for a particular claim or set of claims. ] 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Flavius' criteria are indeed quite similar to the ones I see when I review publishable papers. You look for reliability and rigour. If it does not appear, you reject the paper and it gets published at a less rigorous journal. I do not know the exact method the researchers used to accept or reject papers, however there are plenty of hints in the review papers already. However, the fact remains, those reputable researchers and many other reputable writers hold the scientific view that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscientific.] 17:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:I'm looking for evidence of a common standard applied to papers that support NLP and papers that dismiss it. On the one hand I see mass dismissal of some 100 papers, although it is likely a significant number are indicative. On the other I see people like Morgan. Headley, it's very hard to take your words about research seriously when I see little or no evidence of any attempt by you to apply a common standard both ways. In any event, the question was for flavius, who does appear to have thought about the matter. I'd like his considered view please. ] 17:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Flavius has shown that some of the sources on the research page are not in Medline. I agree with FT2 that medline is a medical database... perhaps psyclit is more relevant (though I don't think it's online). Anyway, I have just spent a bit of time going through our references on the main page looking them up on medline (and their authors to check whether a book author or web author is listed with research background).

::No that is incorrect Medline is not only a medical database. It indexes all of the life sciences and biomedical sciences. For example, an exact phrase search "cognitive behavioral therapy"/"cognitive behavioural therapy" yields 3255 citations (2334 + 921). The exact phrase search "neurolinguistic programming" yields 78 citations and many aren't reserach papers and some find against the efficacy of NLP (I'll investigate the distribution of negative/positive results and report later). ] 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

...Criticism
*{{Note|Derks_1998}}Derks and Hollander (1998) Systemic Voodoo. ISBN 1907388896
Not in Medline (we don't expect a book to be - this refers to authors also not on Medline)
*{{Note|Carrol_2003}} Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll (2003) The Skeptic's Dictionary Publisher: Wiley; .
Not in Medline (again, don't expect a website to be - refers to R Carroll).
*{{Note|Singer_1995}}{{Book reference
| Author=Thaler Singer, Margaret & Janja Lalich
| Title=Crazy Therapies : What they are? Do they work?
| Publisher=New York, NY: Jossey Bass
| Year=1996
| ID=0787902780}}
*{{Note|Salerno_2005}}Salerno, S (2005); Sham : How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless. Crown Publishers ISBN 1400054095
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Sanghera_2005}}{{Citenewsauthor
| surname=Sanghera | given=S
| title=Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser
| date=Aug 26, 2005
| org=Financial Times, London (UK)
| url=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/770f7e96-15cd-11da-8085-00000e2511c8.html}}
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Lilienfeld_2003}}Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) (2003) . Guilford Press, New York. ISBN 1-57230-282-1,.
Book not in Medline of course - though Authors have many articles cited in medline.
.....Scientific review of NLP
*{{Note|Bördlein_2001}}Bördlein, Christoph (2001). Das "Neurolinguistische Programmieren" (NLP) - Hochwirksame Techniken oder haltlose Behauptungen? Schulheft, 103 , 117-129.
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Drenth_2003}}Drenth, J.D. (2003) Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Druckman_1988}}{{Book reference
| Author=Druckman, Daniel & John A Swets, (Eds)
| Title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques
| Publisher=Washington DC: National Academy Press | Year=1988
| ID=ISBN 0309037921
| URL=http://www.nap.edu/books/0309037921/html
| Pages=138-149.
}} Retrieved 25 Aug 2005
Book not in Medline (of course), Author Druckman is.
*{{Note|Ekman_2003}}Ekman The Observer. CRIME UNCOVERED: YOUVE GOT THE LOOK: WOULD YOU LIE TO ME? London (UK): Apr 27, 2003. pg. 58
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Bradley_1985}}{{Journal reference
| Author=Bradley, E J & Heinz J Biedermann
| Title=Bandler and Grinder's Communication Analysis: Its historical context and contribution. | Journal=Psychotherapy, Theory and Research
| Year=1985
| Volume=22
| Pages=59-62}}
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Bertelsen_1987}}{{Journal reference
| Author=Bertelsen, Preben & Lars Hem:
| Title=Om begrebet: klientens model af verden (??: the client's model of the world)
| Journal=Psyke & Logos
| Year=1987
| Volume=2
| Pages=375-408}}
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Beyerstein_1997}}Beyerstein. B.L. (1997) Skeptical Inquirer magazine. September/October 1997
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Beyerstein_2001}}Beyerstein, B. (2001). The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 5, 70-79.
Not in Medline - he has a different article in another journal.
*{{Note|Platt_2001}}{{Journal reference
| Author=Platt, Garry
| Title=NLP - Neuro Linguistic Programming or No Longer Plausible?
| Journal=Training Journal
| Year=2001
| Volume=May
| Pages=10-15
| URL=http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Publications/Articles/NLP_Plausible.htm}}<br> Retrieved 24 Aug 2005.
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Bliemeister_1998}}{{Journal reference | Author=Bliemeister, J | Title=Empirische Uberprufung zentraler theoretischer Konstrukte des Neurolinguistischen Programmierens (NLP) (Empirical verification of central theoretical constructs of neurolinguistic programming (NLP).) | Journal=Zeitschrift f klinische Psychologie, Forschung und Praxis | Year=1988 | Volume=17(1) | Pages=21-30}}
Not in Medline. There is a Bliemeister J mentioned in medline, unsure if it's him.
*{{Note|Heap_1989}}Heap, M. (1989) Neurolinguistic programming: What is the evidence? In D Waxman D. Pederson. I, Wilkie, and P Mellett(Eds) Hypnosis: The fourth european congress at Oxford (pp 118-124) London. Whurr Publishers.
Not in Medline - Author is.
*{{Note|Williams_2000}}Williams, W F. general editor.(2000) Encyclopedia of pseudoscience
Publisher Facts On File New York.
Not in Medline
*Helisch. M (2004) Veranstaltung:- Gesellschaftliche Funktion, Entwicklung und Sozialisation von Emotionen Seitenzahl: 39 Issue: 1
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Raso_1994}}Raso. J. (1994) "Alternative" Healthcare: A Comprehensive Guide. Prometheus Books. ISBN: 0879758910
Not in Medline
*{{Note|Winn_2001}}Winn, C.M , and Wiggins,A.W (2001) QUANTUM LEAPS..in the wrong direction: Where real science ends and pseudoscience begins. Joseph Henry Press.
Not in Medline
...Psychology theory
*{{Note|Mitchie_2005}}{{Journal reference
| Author=Michie, S, M Johnston, C Abraham, R Lawton, D Parker & A Walker
| Title=Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
| Journal=Quality & Safety in Health Care
| Year=2005
| Volume=14
| Pages=26-33
| URL=http://qhc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/1/26}}
Yes, in medline
*{{Note|Derks_1985}}Derks, L. & Goldblatt, R.,(1985) The Feedforward Conception of Consciousness: A Bridge between Therapeutic Practice and Experimental Psychology. The William James Foundation, Amsterdam.
... Human Resources
*{{Note|Hardiman_1994}}Hardiman (1994) NLP background and issues. Industrial relations review and report No 560 May
Not in Medline
*{{Note|VonBergen_1997}}{{Journal reference
| Author=Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal, Lamar V Wilkinson
| Title=Selected alternative training techniques in HRD
| Journal=Human Resource Development Quarterly
| Year=1997
| Volume=8(4)
| Pages=281-294}}
Not in Medline - though Von Bergen has a couple of research articles.
*{{Book reference
| Author=Thaler Singer, Margaret
| Title=Cults in Our Midst : The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace
| Publisher=New York, NY: Jossey Bass
| Year=1995
| ID=ISBN 0787967416}}<br />See ] and Retrieved 25 Aug 2005
Not in Medline.
*{{Note|Krugman_1985}}Krugman, Kirsch, Wickless, Milling, Golicz, & Toth (1985). Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. Vol 53(4), 526-530.
Yes, in medline.

I may have missed some authors in my searches of course (eg Salerno S has articles but it's a different field, and in italian, unlikely to be our Salerno S?). I'm only putting these here to put things in perspective. Hope it helps. ] 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::GregA. ''Studia Psychologica'' -- the journal in which Drenth (2000) is published is/was indexed by Medline. The issue at hand is the credibility of the journals that published the research cited by FT2. I proposed the widely accepted heuristic of referring to whether the publication in question is or was indexed by Medline. Additionally we can check whether a given author has any publications in Medline indexed journals and we can use 'Google Scholar' to determine how many times a piece of research is cited by other researchers. I contend that you will find that most of FT2s citations are seldom cited and that the authors of the papers cited have few or no published papers in any journal indexed by Medline. I don't have the time to perform all this work and to be frank I'm not sure what the result will be if it is completed. Even at this stage it is plain that the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of expert opinion is that NLP is scientifically unsupported, of dubious value at best and outright fraudulent at worst. The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others. This is the 'elephant in the living room' that you, FT2, Comaze et al are doing your best to ignore. My concern is that the pro-NLP participants in this discussion have abandoned the basic premises of rational discourse and are instead engaging in 'religious wars'. The NLP artcile as it currently stands is neutral, it presents the claims of NLP proponents and the critical review which challenges those claims. The problem appears to be the unfavourable reviews by experts and the highlighting of the absence of evidence is unacceptable for those whose livelihood is connected to the practice of NLP. This is understandable but it is unacceptable. ] 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:flavius, I "didn't have time" either. I'm in the middle of selling my house and work, and the like. But when I edit an article on Misplaced Pages, I check out the subject matter responsibly, to try and get a sense what ''all'' sides are saying and why, with the intent of seeing how a balanced view can form. Someone who edits and then says "this is my view, and my main reason for not checking the other views is essentially someone else told me it isn't valid" -- whether that someone is medline, a book, or a friend -- I'm sorry. To me, that just doesn't hold weight. My ''primary'' concern is that a large volume of "something" is being ignored. Whether it is anecdotal evidence from end users of credible bodies who say "It is valuable. It works ", or whether its research that we need to examine paper by paper for credibility rather than assume, there is a significant body of "something" out there. There is mis-reporting of that "something". That is my primary concern. As I said, my impression is that a fair summary is simply, "the jury is out on NLP". There is less hard double-bind lancet-reported trials than I'd like, and on the other hand there is a lot more credence than pseudoscience given by hard nosed users such as advocacy colleges and the FBI, who are not using homeopathy, dianetics, or scientology but ''are'' recommending NLP.

::Firstly, I didn't edit the NLP article so I don't see what you're hissing about. Secondly, I pulled up all the relevant citations from Medline (see below). Thirdly, I provided you the Medline indexing criteria. What's your response? Do you find the Medline expert panel lacking? Thirdly, anecdote doesn't count as evidence, especially not in matters of mental health where the placebo effect has been well documented or when many problems improve on their own without any intervention. Fourthly, it is of no significance that the FBI uses NLP. The criminal justice fields have been influenced by all manner of bunkum throughout history (eg. phrenology, craniology, physiogonomy). ] 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:So we ought to be a little wary of saying its all junk (and NLP enthusiasts should not say its all proven), especially since several present citations state explicitly that experimental design has often been often flawed, or that whilst NLP is not proven, this does ''not'' mean it doesn't have value. When even the negative reviews say that, it's worth noting. What I would like in this article, is a balanced representation. It is not yet proven by a large number of trials. But it is ''also'' not proven or accepted by science to be invalid by a long way either, and the verdict by credible bodies is that ''in the field'' it is often felt to have proven itself useful in a way that many other methods have not. Notice how often it is one of only a handful of techniques, after filtering down, that are recommended. '''That''' is my point. Not that it should be sugar coated, or ignored, but that a balanced review is needed. When certain editors put in unwiki-ish edits, then no matter WHAT the subject itself is, we have a problem because the edits and overall slant are not fitting to the encyclopedia. When editors say "our view and only our view may prevail", thats when i go to escalate the dispute, not because I want one side or the other to win, but because '''''they don't understand wikipedia.....''''' ] 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::No, it is all junk and the burden of proof is on NLP advocates to demonstrate otherwise. ] 11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Flavius, that's where you and wikipedia differ. "Its all junk" is an ''opinion''. Misplaced Pages records opinions but ''does not advocate them''. "NLP is gods gift to humanity" is ''also'' an opinion, and for the same reason Misplaced Pages should not say that either. There is no "burden of proof" since wikipedia is not about "proof". NLP here is descriptive. Your opinion whether NLP is right or wrong, is unimportant. What's important is that NLP is covered ''descriptively'', and that different views that significant groups have on it are made clear, so that a reader can gain an understanding and appreciation how NLP sees itself, and how differing groups also see it. ] 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. You and wikipedia differ a huge amount. Flavius did not write "Junk" within the article itself. But you wrote "you may notice that scientists saying NLP is ineffective is inconsistent with cults using it for power" etc. That is your opinion. And there is no actual inconsistency anyway. Cults also use Dianetics and tealeaf readings, but they are almost as ineffective as NLP. I wish to point this out because you seem to be the one person telling everyone what to do and claiming to have had deep experience of editing. If you are to live up to your claims to wiki expertise, you have a very long way to go. ] 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

====Medline and NLP search====
Searching for "neurolinguistic programming", in PubMed (which includes Medline) retrieves 62 citations. My
earlier search on Scirus yielded 84 citations. I reviewed the 22 and found that they were either off-topic
or were book reviews. What follows is the 62 citations from PubMed/MEDLINE and my comments:

1: Lyon S.
Find some inner courage to beat your interview nerves.
Nurs Stand. 2005 Sep 21-27;20(2):70-1. No abstract available.
PMID: 16209412

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Title suggests content is a
discussion about calming anxiety, perhaps some NLP techniques are offered. The paper
is unlikely to be a research report.

2: Grandke B.
[Logopedics in neurologic rehabilitation: properly supporting patients in "home
work"]
Pflege Z. 2005 Apr;58(4):222-3. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 15887912

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Titles suggests a discussion piece
with suggestions for supporting disabled patients working from home.

3: Gora EP.
Usp Fiziol Nauk. 2005 Jan-Mar;36(1):97-109. Review. Russian.
PMID: 15810684

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

4: Littlewood S.
A route less well travelled.
Prof Nurse. 2005 Jan;20(5):54-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 15683001

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

5: Percival J.
Confidence tricks.
Nurs Stand. 2004 Nov 24-30;19(11):24. No abstract available.
PMID: 15615168

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

6: Theilig P.
Kinderkrankenschwester. 2004 Sep;23(9):343-53. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 15493861

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification.

7: Ellis C.
Neurolinguisic programming in the medical consultation.
S Afr Med J. 2004 Sep;94(9):748-9. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 15487837

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

8: Clabby J, O'Connor R.
Teaching learners to use mirroring: rapport lessons from neurolinguistic
programming.
Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):541-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 15343412

COMMENT: Tutorial.

9: Chinellato P.
The recovery of subject clitics in mild agrammatism: implications for treatment
and linguistic analysis.
Cortex. 2004 Feb;40(1):162-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 15174450

COMMENT: Off-topic.

10: Woodard F.
Phenomenological contributions to understanding hypnosis: review of the
literature.
Psychol Rep. 2003 Dec;93(3 Pt 1):829-47. Review.
PMID: 14723451

COMMENT: Review.

11: Wilhelm J.
Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 2003;96(7):12-3. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 14619890

COMMENT: Interview.

12: Ball MJ.
Clinical applications of a cognitive phonology.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2003;28(2):63-9.
PMID: 14582829

COMMENT: Off-topic.

13: Nelson R, Ball MJ.
Models of phonology in the education of speech-language pathologists.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Jun-Aug;17(4-5):403-9.
PMID: 12945616

COMMENT: Off-topic.

14: Burke DT, Meleger A, Schneider JC, Snyder J, Dorvlo AS, Al-Adawi S.
Eye-movements and ongoing task processing.
Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Jun;96(3 Pt 2):1330-8.
PMID: 12929791

COMMENT: Research study

ABSTRACT:

This study tests the relation between eye-movements and thought processing.
Subjects were given specific modality tasks (visual, gustatory, kinesthetic)
and assessed on whether they responded with distinct eye-movements. Some
subjects' eye-movements reflected ongoing thought processing. Instead of a
universal pattern, as suggested by the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis,
this study yielded subject-specific idiosyncratic eye-movements across all
modalities. Included is a discussion of the neurolinguistic programming
hypothesis regarding eye-movements and its implications for the eye-movement
desensitization and reprocessing theory.

15: Leybaert J, D'Hondt M.
Neurolinguistic development in deaf children: the effect of early language
experience.
Int J Audiol. 2003 Jul;42 Suppl 1:S34-40.
PMID: 12918608

COMMENT: Off-topic.

16: Perlak D, Jarema G.
The recognition of gender-marked nouns and verbs in Polish-speaking aphasic
patients.
Cortex. 2003 Jun;39(3):383-403.
PMID: 12870818

COMMENT: Off-topic.

17: Vianna LA, Bomfim GF, Chicone G.
Rev Bras Enferm. 2002 Sep-Oct;55(5):503-8. Portuguese.
PMID: 12817532

COMMENT: "Socio-drama techniques of Neurolinguistics were used and the evaluation
was done according to Minayo" (from Abstract)

18: Walter J, Bayat A.
Neurolinguistic programming: the keys to success.
BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):s165-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 12750228

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

19: Walter J, Bayat A.
Neurolinguistic programming: temperament and character types.
BMJ. 2003 Apr 19;326(7394):S133. No abstract available.
PMID: 12702636

COMMENT: Introductory MBTI (not metaprogrammes as you'd expect) tutorial.

20: Walter J, Bayat A.
Neurolinguistic programming: verbal communication.
BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):S83. No abstract available.
PMID: 12637421

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

21: Bowers JS.
Challenging the widespread assumption that connectionism and distributed
representations go hand-in-hand.
Cognit Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):413-45. Review.
PMID: 12480480

COMMENT: Off-topic.

22: Gershkoff-Stowe L, Goldin-Medow S.
Is there a natural order for expressing semantic relations?
Cognit Psychol. 2002 Nov;45(3):375-412.
PMID: 12480479

COMMENT: Off-topic.

23: Acosta JK, Levenson RL Jr.
Observations from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center in New York City, Part
II: Theoretical and clinical considerations.
Int J Emerg Ment Health. 2002 Spring;4(2):119-26.
PMID: 12166017

COMMENT: Discussion paper with suggestions.

24: Francelin Romero RA, Kacpryzk J, Gomide F.
A biologically inspired neural network for dynamic programming.
Int J Neural Syst. 2001 Dec;11(6):561-72.
PMID: 11852439

COMMENT: Off-topic

25: Suthers M.
Our personal space.
Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000 Oct;15:280-3.
PMID: 11709956

COMMENT: Introductory NLP tutorial.

26: Hotz G, Helm-Estabrooks N, Nelson NW.
Development of the pediatric test of brain injury.
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2001 Oct;16(5):426-40. Review.
PMID: 11574039

COMMENT: Off-topic

27: Lin EL, Murphy GL.
Thematic relations in adults' concepts.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Mar;130(1):3-28.
PMID: 11293459

COMMENT: Off-topic

28: Ronnberg J, Soderfeldt B, Risberg J.
The cognitive neuroscience of signed language.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Dec;105(2-3):237-54. Review.
PMID: 11194414

COMMENT: Off-topic

29: Hugdahl K.
Lateralization of cognitive processes in the brain.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Dec;105(2-3):211-35. Review.
PMID: 11194413

COMMENT: Off-topic review/tutorial.

30: Andrianopoulos MV, Gallivan GJ, Gallivan KH.
PVCM, PVCD, EPL, and irritable larynx syndrome: what are we talking about and
how do we treat it?
J Voice. 2000 Dec;14(4):607-18.
PMID: 11130117

COMMENT: Not a research report. "A multifactorial management program is proposed
utilizing principles of motor learning, neurolinguistic programming model,
respiratory and phonatory synchronization, relaxation techniques, concurrent
monitoring of behavioral adjustments, and formal psychological counseling."
(from the abstract)

31: Sumin AN, Khairedinova OP, Sumina LIu, Variushkina EV, Doronin DV,
Galimzianov DM, Masin AN, Gol'dberg GA.
[Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical rehabilitation
in patients with acute coronary syndrome]
Klin Med (Mosk). 2000;78(6):16-20. Russian.
PMID: 10900863

ABSTRACT: Of 103 patients with acute coronary syndrome (mean age 51.6 +/- 0.9 years)
47 patients participated in 5 group psychotherapeutic sessions added to conversional
rehabilitation program. Psychotherapy included progressive muscular relaxation,
neurolinguistic programming, eriksonian hypnosis, therapeutic metaphora. Psychotherapy
decreased the hear rate, number of ventricular extrasystoles, stimulated tonicity of
the parasympathetic nervous system. Compared to the controls, the test patients
developed higher exercise tolerance and lower reactivity of the central hemodynamics
in all the exercise tests.

COMMENTS: Findings confounded by the administration of multiple, simultaneous
psychotherapies.

32: Begley S, Check E.
Rewiring your gray matter. The brain: you can teach an old brain new tricks.
Neuroplasticity promises to give a whole new meaning to 'changing your mind'.
Newsweek. 2000 Jan 1;134(26):63-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 10848178

COMMENT: Off-topic news.

33: Kaplowitz GJ.
Communicating with patients.
Gen Dent. 1999 Jul-Aug;47(4):399-403.
PMID: 10687469

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

34: Turner J.
Soins. 1999 Jul-Aug;(637):33-6. French. No abstract available.
PMID: 10615173

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

35: Schaefer J, Schajor S.
[Learning with all one's senses. Neurolinguistic programming in the teaching of
pediatric nursing]
Kinderkrankenschwester. 1999 Jul;18(7):289-91. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 10514683

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

36: Gorecka D, Borak J, Goljan A, Gorzelak K, Mankowski M, Zgierska A.
[Treatment outcome in tobacco dependence after nicotine replacement therapy and
group therapy]
Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1999;67(3-4):95-102. Polish.
PMID: 10497441

ABSTRACT: The deletorious (sic) health effects of smoking are generally known.
In spite of that, great numbers of people still smoke tobacco in the whole world.
It is primarily due to the addictive properties of nicotine. Cigarette smoking is also
dependent on various social and psychologic factors making quitting very difficult.
Among various treatment modalities for tobacco dependence we aimed to assess the
efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) vs group therapy. 325 subjects
smoking at least 15 cigarettes/day for more than 3 years were studied. They were
allocated to group therapy (neurolinguistic programming) or NRT (gum or patch) at
their will. Non-smoking was validated at each of follow-up visits, at 1 and 2
weeks 1, 3, 6, 12 months by measuring CO in expired air. All groups were matched
in age, smoking history and nicotine dependence. The best quit rate was observed
as a result of group therapy (41% at 1 year, p. < 0.001) as compared to nicotine
patch (2%) and nicotine gum (9%).

COMMENT: No control (no treatment) or placebo group.

37: de Miranda CT, de Paula CS, Palma D, da Silva EM, Martin D, de Nobrega FJ.
Impact of the application of neurolinguistic programming to mothers of children
enrolled in a day care center of a shantytown.
Sao Paulo Med J. 1999 Mar 4;117(2):63-71.
PMID: 10488603

ABSTRACT:

CONTEXT: Of the members of a family, the mother is without doubt the most important one,
which provides justification for including an evaluation of her mental health as one of
the variables to be considered as determining factors in each child's level of development.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the application of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)
on child development, home environment and maternal mental health. DESIGN: Randomised
controlled trial. SETTING: The study included children enrolled in the municipal day
care center of a shantytown in the City of Sao Paulo. PARTICIPANTS: 45 pairs of mothers
and respective children between 18 and 36 months of age. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Children's
development (Bayley scales); home environment variation (HOME); and maternal mental health
(SRQ). Comparison between before and after the intervention was made in terms of children's
psychomotor development, home environment and maternal mental health. INTERVENTION: Application
of the NLP technique to the experimental group and comparison with a control group.
1--Experimental (EG), consisting of 23 children submitted to intervention by NLP; and
2--Control (CG), with 22 children with no intervention. Length of intervention:
15 sessions of NLP. RESULTS: 37 children remained in the study (EG = 10, CG = 27).
Variations in mental development (OR 1.21, IC 95% 0.0 to 23.08) in their home environment
(Wilcoxon): p = 0.96 (before) and p = 0.09 (after); in maternal mental health: p = 0.26, 2 df.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend that indicated positive effects on the home environment
from the intervention.

COMMENT: Randomized control trial with an apparently sound design. The design incorporated
a control group with no intervention but no placebo group. The study tells us that something
is better than nothing but it fails to tell us if NLP was better than placebo.

38: Turnbull J.
Intuition in nursing relationships: the result of 'skills' or 'qualities'?
Br J Nurs. 1999 Mar 11-24;8(5):302-6. Review.
PMID: 10362932

COMMENT: Tutorial.

39: Konefal J, Duncan RC.
Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming.
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):1115-22.
PMID: 9923190

ABSTRACT: The Liebowitz Social Phobia Scale measured the effect of training on social
anxiety responses of 28 adults prior to and following a 21-day residential training,
and at 6 mo. follow-up. Significant reductions posttraining and at follow-up were evident
in the mean self-reported global scale scores on fear and avoidance behavior in social
situations. The item scores, aggregated to reflect the situational domains of formal
and informal speaking, being observed by others, and assertion, showed significant and
continuing reduction from posttraining through follow-up. These findings are consistent
with the hypothesis that this training may be associated with reduced responses to
social anxiety, but as there was no formal control group, pretest scores from another
study were used. Interpretation is limited.

COMMENT: No control group.

40: Starker S, Pankratz L.
Soundness of treatment: a survey of psychologists' opinions.
Psychol Rep. 1996 Feb;78(1):288-90.
PMID: 8839319

ABSTRACT: A random sample of 300 psychologists listed in the National Register of Health Service
Providers in Psychology were surveyed about the soundness of forms of mental health treatment
and use of these treatments in practice. The 139 psychologists responding expressed greatest
confidence in cognitive-behavioral therapy and antipsychotic medications. Approaches most in
question as to soundness were primal therapy, neurolinguistic programming, bioenergetics, and
aversive therapy. Factor analysis indicated widespread endorsement and use of multiple techniques
within two broad camps of research-based "hard-edged" versus clinical
wisdom/philosophy-based "soft-edged."

COMMENT: Survey report.

41: Graf U.
[Neurolinguistic programming in physician-patient communication. Basic
principles of the procedure--examples for application in surgery]
Fortschr Med. 1995 Sep 20;113(26):368-71. German.
PMID: 7498856

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a means of improving physician-patient
communication that can be learned by any doctor. The present article first describes
some of the fundamentals of NLP and then provides examples taken from the field of
surgery-in the first instance dealing with the treatment of painful conditions by
means of trance or dissociation and, secondly, on the influencing of expectations
and the restructuring (reframing) of doctrines in a patient with malignant disease.

COMMENT: Tutorial and case report.

42: Hossack A, Standidge K.
Using an imaginary scrapbook for neurolinguistic programming in the aftermath
of a clinical depression: a case history.
Gerontologist. 1993 Apr;33(2):265-8.
PMID: 8468020

ABSTRACT: We employed neurolinguistic programming (NLP) principles to develop a
positive self-identity in an elderly male patient in England recovering from
clinical depression. This novel technique encouraged recall of intrinsically
rewarding past experiences. Each experience was conceptualized in an image and
compiled chronologically in an imaginary book, providing continuity to what were
chaotic and fragmented recollections during the immediate postdepressive stage.
The patient's anxiety and depression were alleviated and his own functional
goals largely realized.

COMMENT: Case report.

43: Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA.
Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control.
Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32.
PMID: 1620774

ABSTRACT: Training in the neurolinguistic programming techniques of shifting perceptual
position, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, timelines, and change-history, all based on
experiential cognitive processing of remembered events, leads to an increased awareness
of behavioral contingencies and a more sensitive recognition of environmental cues which
could serve to lower trait anxiety and increase the sense of internal control. This study
reports on within-person and between-group changes in trait anxiety and locus of control
as measured on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Wallston, Wallston,
and DeVallis' Multiple Health Locus of Control immediately following a 21-day residential
training in neurolinguistic programming. Significant with-in-person decreases in
trait-anxiety scores and increases in internal locus of control scores were observed as
predicted. Chance and powerful other locus of control scores were unchanged. Significant
differences were noted on trait anxiety and locus of control scores between European and
U.S. participants, although change scores were similar for the two groups. These findings
are consistent with the hypothesis that this training may lower trait-anxiety scores and
increase internal locus of control scores. A matched control group was not available, and
follow-up was unfortunately not possible.

COMMENT: No control group.

44: Jepsen CH.
Neurolinguistic programming in dentistry.
J Calif Dent Assoc. 1992 Mar;20(3):28-32. No abstract available.
PMID: 1383450

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

45: Lachler J.
[NLP communication model (neurolinguistic programming)--practical application.
Opening up inner power sources and helping others with it]
Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 1991 Feb;84(2):74-6. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 2005751

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

46: Schneeberger S, Rohr E.
[NLP communication model (neurolinguistic programming)--an introduction.
Greater clarity in communicating and observing]
Krankenpfl Soins Infirm. 1991 Feb;84(2):70-3. German. No abstract available.
PMID: 2005750

COMMENT: Tutorial.

47: Pesut DJ.
The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health
nursing.
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1991 Jan-Mar;12(1):9-18.
PMID: 1988384

COMMENT: Tutorial.

48: Christensen JF, Levinson W, Grinder M.
Applications of neurolinguistic programming to medicine.
J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Nov-Dec;5(6):522-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 2266436

COMMENT: Review/tutorial.

49: Duncan RC, Konefal J, Spechler MM.
Effect of neurolinguistic programming training on self-actualization as
measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory.
Psychol Rep. 1990 Jun;66(3 Pt 2):1323-30.
PMID: 2385721

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming training is based on principles that should
enable the trainee to be more "present"-oriented, inner-directed, flexible,
self-aware, and responsive to others, that is, more self-actualized. This study
reports within-person changes on self-actualization measures of the Personal
Orientation Inventory following a 24-day residential training in neurolinguistic
programming. Significant positive mean changes were found for 18 master
practitioners on nine of the 12 scales and for 36 practitioners on 10 of the 12
scales. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that training increases
individual self-actualization scores.

COMMENT: No control group.

50: Field ES.
Neurolinguistic programming as an adjunct to other
psychotherapeutic/hypnotherapeutic interventions.
Am J Clin Hypn. 1990 Jan;32(3):174-82.
PMID: 2296919

COMMENT: Case report.

51: Dooley KO, Farmer A.
Comparison for aphasic and control subjects of eye movements hypothesized in
neurolinguistic programming.
Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):233-4.
PMID: 3211676

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming's hypothesized eye movements were measured
independently using videotapes of 10 nonfluent aphasic and 10 control subjects
matched for age and sex. Chi-squared analysis indicated that eye-position responses
were significantly different for the groups. Although earlier research has not
supported the hypothesized eye positions for normal subjects, the present findings
support the contention that eye-position responses may differ between neurologically
normal and aphasic individuals.

COMMENT: Weak conclusion, doesn't demonstrate the validity of eye accessing cues.

52: Seunke W, Keukens R, von Pernis H.
TVZ. 1988 Jan 7;42(1):21-5. Dutch. No abstract available. Erratum in: Tijdschr
Ziekenverpl 1988 Feb 4;42(3):84.
PMID: 3127930

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

53: Wertheim EH, Habib C, Cumming G.
Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements relate to
processing imagery.
Percept Mot Skills. 1986 Apr;62(2):523-9.
PMID: 3503261

ABSTRACT: Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis that eye-movements reflect sensory processing
was examined. 28 volunteers first memorized and then recalled visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic stimuli. Changes in eye-positions during recall were videotaped and
categorized by two raters into positions hypothesized by Bandler and Grinder's model
to represent visual, auditory, and kinesthetic recall. Planned contrast analyses suggested
that visual stimulus items, when recalled, elicited significantly more upward eye-positions
and stares than auditory and kinesthetic items. Auditory and kinesthetic items, however,
did not elicit more changes in eye-position hypothesized by the model to represent
auditory and kinesthetic recall, respectively.

COMMENT: Suggests that eye accssing cues model is invalid.

54: Poffel SA, Cross HJ.
Neurolinguistic programming: a test of the eye-movement hypothesis.
Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Dec;61(3 Pt 2):1262. No abstract available.
PMID: 4094868

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it).
(I found a reference to it which said they did not support eye-movement hypotheses ] 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC))


55: Farmer A, Rooney R, Cunningham JR.
Hypothesized eye movements of neurolinguistic programming: a statistical
artifact.
Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Dec;61(3 Pt 1):717-8.
PMID: 4088761

ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming's hypothesized eye-movements were measured
independently from videotapes of 30 subjects, aged 15 to 76 yr., who were asked
to recall visual pictures, recorded audio sounds, and textural objects. chi 2
indicated that subjects' responses were significantly different from those
predicted. When chi 2 comparisons were weighted by number of eye positions
assigned to each modality (3 visual, 3 auditory, 1 kinesthetic), subjects'
responses did not differ significantly from the expected pattern. These data
indicate that the eye-movement hypothesis may represent randomly occurring
rather than sensory-modality-related positions.

COMMENT: Suggests that eye accssing cues model is invalid.

56: Coe WC, Scharcoff JA.
An empirical evaluation of the neurolinguistic programming model.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1985 Oct;33(4):310-8. No abstract available.
PMID: 4030158

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it).
The neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that most people have a preferred way of dealing with the world -- a primary representational system -- was tested. 50 Ss were evaluated for sensory modality preference in 3 ways: (a) they chose among written descriptions using either visual, auditory, or kinesthetic wording (preference); (b) their eye movements were recorded during an interview; and (c) their verbal responses were scored for sensory predicates. The results did not support neurolinguistic programming theory in that preference of 1 modality on 1 measure did not relate to the same modality on the other measures as would be expected if primary representational systems were characteristic of the sample. Other studies have shown mixed results. The conclusion seems warranted that a good deal more empirical support is needed before the positive therapeutic claims of neurolinguistic programming proponents can be taken seriously.
(] 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC))


57: Knowles RD, Brockopp DY.
Kango Gijutsu. 1984 Oct;30(13):1829-34. Japanese. No abstract available.
PMID: 6567712

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

58: Yapko MD.
Implications of the Ericksonian and Neurolinguistic programming approaches for
responsibility of therapeutic outcomes.
Am J Clin Hypn. 1984 Oct;27(2):137-43. No abstract available.
PMID: 6517044

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

59: Brockopp DY.
Taehan Kanho. 1983 Dec 30;22(5):48-9. Korean. No abstract available.
PMID: 6560114

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

60: Knowles RD.
Taehan Kanho. 1983 Dec 30;22(5):45-7. Korean. No abstract available.
PMID: 6560113

COMMENT: No abstract or MEDLINE classification. Unlikely to be research report.

61: Dowd ET, Hingst AG.
Matching therapists' predicates: an in vivo test of effectiveness.
Percept Mot Skills. 1983 Aug;57(1):207-10.
PMID: 6622159

ABSTRACT: The theory of neurolinguistic programming predicts that a therapist's
matching of a client's primary representational system, as expressed in the
client's predicates, should result in increased therapist's rapport and social
influence. This hypothesis was tested in an actual interview situation. Six
relatively inexperienced therapists, two each in predicate matching, predicate
mismatching, and predicate no-matching conditions, conducted a 30-min. interview
with nine undergraduate student volunteers each, for a total of 54 subjects.
After the appropriate interview condition was completed, subjects rated ther
therapists on the Counselor Rating Form and the Counseling Evaluation Inventory.
No significant differences among the three conditions on any of the measures
were found. Results are compared with those of previous research on assessment
and primary representational matching in analogue situations.

COMMENT: Suggests that predicate matching does not work.

62: Thomason TC, Arbuckle T, Cady D.
Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming.
Percept Mot Skills. 1980 Aug;51(1):230. No abstract available.
PMID: 7432961

COMMENT: No abstract (can anyone retrieve it).

On the basis of this review alone it would be sufficient to conclude that there
is no evidence that NLP works. The few studies that are reported -- that find
that NLP is efficacious -- have one or more methodological flaws that either
invalidate the conclusions or severely constrain the conclusions that can be
drawn. ] 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:Hi Flavius. I was doing the same search, a good idea and you beat me to it.
:I'm not sure how you make that conclusion. You've been saying that an article being in a journal indexed by medline indicates a certain quality and openness to peer review. Then for every research piece supporting NLP you find a fault. Lets be clear on what you just summarised above.
:#There are 7 studies not supporting NLP (#14, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, (&62?)). As with Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) review of NLP, all these studies are rep systems related - 5 eye accessing cues, 1 of verbal predicates. Only one is after 1986 (it's in 2003).
:#There are 7 studies supporting NLP (#31, 36, 37, 39, 43, 49, 51). All are after 1987. They use a variety of NLP techniques (and often don't say specifically). (Only 1 was eye related and it simply found differences in eye movements between Aphasic and control groups)
:#There are > 22 articles recommending or teaching NLP (this does not include straight reviews)
:I don't know how you can say that medline is a good measurement of quality, and on the other that each article in support of NLP is not good enough.
:Perhaps the answer to all our disagreements is in reporting more clearly the differences between PRS studies and all other NLP studies. This would concur with Druckman, Heap, Einspruch, etc, and be consistent with all the articles we've found showing use of NLP within police, FBI, etc. We could also accurately reflect Druckman, Heap, Einspruch when they said that there was more research to be done... which indeed there has been, successfully. Sure this is only medline stuff at this point.
:What it doesn't reflect is cult books, skeptics dictionary, and pseudoscience books... which would need to be addressed but may be explained by the above. ] 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::GregA. So are you suggesting that the massive commercial edifice of NLP sits securely on seven studies -- that although published in reputable journals -- have obvious flaws, that I, a non-expert can point out. I'm beginning to think that you're not really serious about this matter. I've answered all of your questions (and some) yet you steadfastly refuse to yield even though you have no basis for maintaining your position. I'll repeat my line of argument. If a journal is not indexed by Medline its most likely not even worth citing. If it is indexed by Medline it is worth citing and critiquing. I have offered a short critique of those NLP-related papers that are indexed by Medline. This is entirely consistent with my stated position. Unfortunately -- for you, FT2, Comaze, the crackpot conspiracy theorist and NLP -- all of the NLP related studies that report a result in favor of NLP have one or more major flaws. We really needn't proceed any further, this alone confirms the report in the critical texts cited in the article that NLP is without scientific foundation. However, we can proceed further and make an even stronger case against NLP. There are studies published in reputable journals that don't support the core NLP theory of representational systems. We can go further yet. We know from the need to postulate meta-programs that another pillar of NLP theory -- cognitive strategies -- is invalid, lacking predictive or explanatory power. We can go even further. Neurology and linguistics -- two professional fields that are not tied to psychology and psychiatry and hence cannot be slandered with the usual Church of Scientology style propaganda -- reject NLP theory completely. Whenever I encounter a modern textbook, dictionary or encyclopedia on linguistics, psycohlinguistics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or neurology I always look up 'Neurolinguistic Programming' and I am yet to find an entry. NLP theory -- which makes many claims about psycholingustics and neurology -- has absolutely no currency in modern neurology or linguistics. Before you ask, I'm not going to give you a list of neurology and linguistics that do not mention NLP. Further, NLP has all of the characteristics of a pseudoscience (most notably it proposes unfalsifiable hypothesis, its theories have no predictive power and its research program is degenerating). Also, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of NLP proponents not its critics. ] 10:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Flavius. That steadfast refusal you notice is mostly just a kind of trolling tactic. I have had to put up with it for months. No matter how much you explain, they keep on claiming you have not answered the question. They sometimes use it as an excuse to rip the facts they don't like from the article. Comaze did that yesterday. You probably noticed already. If they do that, just revert as you wish. Regards ] 13:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Actually it is quite useful within cults (as a rich source of convenient pseudoscientific misdirection for creating insecurities in normal people). Of course it is also good for selling meaningless subconcious processing (pseudoscientific) audio tapes. Its also great for speading popular and potentially damaging myths about the mind (quite evident on this discussion page). Regards ] 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:Of course I'm not suggesting that Flavius. You named the terms of discussion and I entered. Lets keep the emotion out of it eh??! I haven't mentioned Scientology I see no relevance to NLP. I think linguistics and neurology should reject NLP theory when it's wrong... NLP's focus is elsewhere, by and large (modeling patterns for instance). As far as pseudoscience goes, the NLP processes are certainly falsifiable, the definition of a pattern is predictability, but I agree that if NLP had a "research program" it would probably be degenerating (certainly psychological research on NLP seems to be). Anyway, back to medline - you wanted to use medline as a baseline ... then you discount each study supporting NLP, and I can discount each study not supporting NLP, and we get nowhere. We're not here to do our own research and are not allowed as you should know... we can just represent what's there (plus cite responses to that research or whatever else is necessary to present the research fairly). If the only research was medline, we could say that all non rep-system research supports NLP though criticisms have been made that existing studies require blind trials to confirm the effect (cite the criticism....). Really Flavius if you want to make some rules you can't change them when they don't suit you (not that I agree to your original or modified rules!). Thank you for clarifying the position of NLP from medline's perspective though I think it's great for the article. ] 12:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:Flavius, I have two observations right now (in a bit of a rush)
:# How many of the cited articles in the article, cited by headley et al (Eisner, "Morgan", Carroll, Heap, etc) are on Medline. I see a double standard being applied.
:# You have stated that NLP (theory?) has "absolutely no currency" in linguistics, as a specific example you highlighted. But I don't know if you are aware, but Lakoff, a leading professor of linguistics, has publicly and in his books, credited NLP with significant efficacy as used in USA political campaigning. He cites three examples - one of verbal anchoring, one of non-verbal, and one of lingistic post-hypnotic use. SO I don't think your view is shared by all concerned. ] 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

] 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::I can't find any mention of NLP in at least two of Lakoff's books ("Philosophy in the Flesh" and "Metaphors We Live By"). There is no mention of NLP on Lakoff's homepage (http://www.georgelakoff.com/), the website of his Rockridge Institute (http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/) or any of his articles or archived presentations (online). Lakoff's material regarding US politics revolves around the notion of the conceptual ''frame'' of a word (i.e. the implicit and explicit conecptual topology of word usage), metaphor and what appear to be Jungian archetypes (eg. the disciplining father and nuturing mother). I can't find any NLP theory in Lakoff's work. The notion of frames is from psycholinguistics not NLP. Metaphor and its role in persuasive discourse has been a subject of study since the Rhetorcians of ancient Greece. The "strict father" and "nurturant parent" ideas are very archetypal. You are eager to make George Lakoff a member of the NLP ''granfalloon'' (without his knowledge or consent) to lend the NLP granfalloon some prestige and authority but you do so without any justification. ] 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Flavius and FT2. The website that FT2 is referring to is actually not written by Lakoff. It is written by an NLP promoter who does what NLP promoters do all the time; Makes spurious associations between NLP and well known experts for the sake of promotion. It appears on the NLP map, but not in reality. ] 02:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==Back to science==

It seems that proNLPers here are absolutely determined to confuse and cloud issues surrounding NLP's lack of scientific support and pseudoscientific principles/theory. Scientists already state that the few studies that have found supporting evidence for NLP can be better explained by factors other than NLP. Those recent few supporting studies, for example, are fatally flawed (Eisner 2000) and are not rigorously performed (Lilienfeld 2003). They tend to involve no control groups, or are testing subjects who have already a huge vested interest in claiming success. Studies will continue, and most of them will show negative results (some of those will never be published). The fact is, nobody will conduct properly arranged sets of clinical trials because it is too expensive, and the pre-clinical experiments have failed. The erroneous principles (pseudoscientific pop psychology) also needs more of a mention in the article. As does the flawed linguistic background. There is a strong educational aspect to wikipedia, and it is already stated in the policy statements that science is there to help explain and clarify pseudoscientific thinking. ] 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:QUoting flavius:
::''The brutal fact is there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls that find that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo that has been published in reputable journals, favourably reviewed by experts and reproduced by others.'' flavius 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Flavius. The brutal fact is that there isn't a body of results drawn from single-blind studies with matched controls. Period. (I note your redundancy there... "single blind studies" have "controls" in their design). This is an obvious elephant. There's nothing to show an NLP intervention more effective than placebo. Personally I find the difference between "there are lots of studies which provide no support" and "there is no body of results" significant. Am I understanding you correctly? ] 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) (ps... that's buying into your argument of course... I know at least one outcome based study with controls. Incidentally, how do you do a 'blind study' with a 'control', I assume you have to give the control group some form of therapy otherwise they'd know they were not getting treated (ie the placebo group). ] 05:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::A single blind will always have a placebo group but not necessarily a no-treatment group also. A control group can simply have treatment withheld (as a basis of comparison). I'm suggesting that a sound design for testing an NLP intervention should have a control group (no intervention) and a placebo group (null treatment). A single blind by definition does require a placebo group but it doesn't require a no-treatment group. The no-treatment control group gets nothing they exist only to provide a baseline for comparison. Without the no-treatment control group we wouldn't know -- for example -- if the anxiety went away by itself, with the passage of time. ] 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: Just reading the later literature solves this problem. "In the case of certain highly touted techiques such as neurolinguistic programming (Druckman and Swets 1988), subliminal self-help tapes (Moore 1992; Pratkanis 1992), and facilitated communication for autism (Mulick, Jacobson, and Kobe 1993), controlled studies overwhelmingly indicate that early reports of their effectiveness were illusory". (Lilienfeld et al 2003). Also, I noticed that later more sophisticated studies into NLP have shown that they do not work (ie in the Perception and Motor Skills publication). ] 07:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

== Fuelwagon's Edit ==

<font color="darkblue">I noticed that you said that this was POV. There does seem to be "significant" criticism and saying that is not the same as saying "everyone thingk it is wrong" or "NLP is garbage" or anything else construed as POV. Also, it was reworded far too hastily(sloppy syntax):

<font color="darkblue">Criticism can be said as:

<font color="darkblue">1A "There has been some/little/significant/much criticism of aspect Y of subject X"

<font color="darkblue">1B "Many X feel that Y is..." or anything similar...

<font color="darkblue">2A "X said that Z is Y"

<font color="darkblue">2B "according to X, Z is Y" or anything similar...

<font color="darkblue">The problem with choice 2A is that using the name as the in-line MLA resource note looks somewhat strange and is very awkward when heavily used.</font>''']'''</font><sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:: I strongly agree with you here, especially point 1A. Much of the disputes over criticism could be resolved by attributing the criticism to a specific aspect of NLP. Rather than picking one flaw and overgeneralising. --] 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:::<font color="darkblue">Minor/seldom used aspects of NLP can get a some criticism in the body, but not too much there either. Major aspects can have more criticism, some of which can go in the intro. As I said on the arbitration page (which just got an accept vote by a committee member), the article is not an ''unabridged'' source of criticism or compliment.''']'''</font><sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Agreed. --] 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, VoA. That is how I see it. Keeping things concise is a good plan. I am getting a little concerned about the article approaching the 80 mark. I'll see what I can do about making is more brief. Tatah ] 03:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::::The length is a problem. I think this is often a RESULT of our dispute - people adding more stuff to support the alternate POVs, repetition, etc. When you read the whole thing through the repetition (on the disagreements) is quite surprising. I'd like to request that the main (possibly only) brevifying we do is of repetition for now until we're clear on the way forward??? ] 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::I would say the most effective way would to be to reduce the "how to" aspects of the article and to simply state eg NLP uses a concept called the metamodel - and then write how people view it, and what scientists and linguists say about it. The same with submodalities, vak and the others. That would solve both the "hype within terminology" problem and the psychobabble problem by treating it scientifically. ] 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Yup, that is how they do it on other articles. Presently, the article is just an opportunity to post a lot of babble about parapragmatics, and tweaking your submodalities. I think less Hubbard and more real psychology is the order of the day. I can start posting more really damning and harsh stuff now the proNLP lot have gone crying to the arbitrators. Its about time we had a little more balance added. Cheers ] 09:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Hehe.. that's hilarious. The only mention of Hubbard, Parapragmatics (I should look that up, never heard of it), and submodalities is what Headley et al have added to the pseudoscience section, yet you make out it's something you object to :). I also think that we should probably have more "real NLP", in contrast to "real Psychology". Thanks for the chuckle :) ] 10:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that "significant" is not sourced. i.e. there is no outside source that uses the word "significant", there is nothing that I've seen so far that gives any sense of proportion as to critics versus supporters or what have you, so the article cannot say there is a "majority" of criticism. What the editor might have been trying to say is that there is ''notable'' criticism, but that's sort of redundant, because all sources must be notable in wikipedia. ] 16:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

== Question about weight given to references ==

How do we best determine how much weight is given to each reference for NLP literature or scientific literature? Grinder and Bandler are by far the most cited on NLP with Structure of Magic Volume 1 (~100 citations), followed by Frogs into Princes (~50 citations). Compare it to Robert Dilts or other authors referenced in the article. How relevant is this in determining the weight given to the various sources? How do we best represent this when comparing to academic scholarly references? Is a peer reviewed article given less weight if it has very few citations? I'm looking for something like the ] for this article. --] 14:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:When it comes to NLP literature in comparison to peer-reviewed research, I think we can represent what NLP says, and how (and if) the research responds to what NLP says. Then we have 2 challenges
:#representing what NLP says fairly from multiple sources
:#representing the research fairly and clearly
:I've not thought about number of citations as a means of judging the importance of a peer-reviewed article. Certainly we don't have that many peer-reviewed articles on our page - I would tend to think more of whether the journal is respectable. I would also suggest that newspaper articles and websites may indicate popular impressions (both for and against) but may not represent what NLP actually says, nor what the research says. ] 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::I'd focus first on getting all statements attributed to their sources ("Alice said blah"). Once that's done, then NPOV's first objective is satisfied, and "weight" can then be addressed. But you need to know the source of a view first to know if you're giving that view too much weight. ] 23:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:::This is funny. The scientists have already given appropriate weight to articles. They conclude that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Really, if you havn't looked up those neutrally attributed sources yet, even though they were placed in the article ages ago, AND you have already spent days trying to remove them, I suggest you are far more biased than you pretend to be. ] 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. It says, for example, to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by '''''not''''' making articles state, imply, or insinuate '''''that only one side is correct'''''. . What you continue to call "neutrally attributed sources" has absolutely nothing to do with "Neutral Point Of View policy". ] 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::This is turning towards the surreal. Hasn't this already been resolved? If MEDLINE doesn't index a particular journal then that journal -- and its constituent artcles -- carry little weight. MEDLINE employs an expert panel of scientists that decide what journals to index and which to exclude (refer the link I provided earlier). There are less than 10 studies that are written up in MEDLINE indexed journals that make favourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part thereof) (refer to my MEDLINE search). Further, these studies are offset by the 7 or so studies in MEDLINE that contain no obvious methodological flaws and make unfavourable conclusions regarding NLP (or some part therof) ''and'' the studies themselves contain obvious methodological deficiencies (see my MEDLINE search). Further to that there are numerous books -- authored by scientists -- that are cited in the NLP article (eg. Singer (1999), Lilienfeld (2003)) that arrive at a negative evalutaion of NLP. What is there left to weigh as assess? Anecdote? Testimonials? Unpublished research results? Research results published in ''Anchor Point'' and obscure journals that for all we know were founded and edited by some fruitcake? Articles in obscure journals that pseudoscience topics routinely? I'm eager to know. The consensus of scientific and clinical opinion is that NLP is bunkum. ] 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo FuelWagon. Actually, if you would like to familiarize yourself, all views are not to be given equal weight. Science gets the priority. Also your own research is not appropriate. You must use reviews of scientific findings as quoted by the majority of scientists who study NLP.

All the scientists I have read about quote Druckman and state that NLP is wrong or unsupported, or that overwhelming evidence from controlled studies shows that NLP is wrong or ineffective. They also quote Sharpley and show that the research on NLP is correctly conducted, and shows that there is not one iota of evidence for NLP's effectiveness or wild claims (Eisner, and others).

Also, those scientists (post 1995) who talk of the research they have reviewed for themselves, talk about research done in business settings and further theraputic sessions and state that the majority of research still shows that NLP is unsupported. They also say that the small amount of supporting studies are flawed. But this is on top of the fact that NLP uses pseudosciencitic assumptions (promotions) throughout their writings, throughout their associations (with other pseudo subjects like magick) and throughout their excuses. The article gives a very clear scientific view. There are concessions given to NLP, in that other dodgy subjects are promoted in psychotherapy and within business practice and so on. I think that's very fair. ] 04:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages does not allow a Scientific Point Of View. It requires a Neutral Point Of View. There is a significant difference. You must report that "scientist's-name (or organization name) says NLP is pseudoscientific." You cannot state that "NLP is pseudoscientific" and cite some scientist to declare the statement undisputed fact. NPOV policy specifically says report views from the sources who hold them. It does not say to report scientific views as fact and all other views as opinions. There are no concessions to be given to this policy. There is nothing about your definition of what is "fair" involved here. This is ''Neutral Point Of View'' policy and it is non-negotiable. Report the views from the sources who hold them. ] 04:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Why don't you represent ALL of the other views in the same way then? To argue as you have done is completely inconsistent with the rest of the article. ] 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==FuelWagon's notion of neutral==

::I don't care one whit about NLP. I care about NPOV policy. You care greatly about NLP and you don't seem to care about NPOV policy. (Or you don't understand it.) That is the difference here. Personally, it sounds to me like a bunch of NLP business people are running a scam, and there may also be some people using it for good purposes. But my opinion doesn't matter. Again, that is the difference here. A bunch of editors think their opinion about NLP matters somehow. It doesn't. If an editor's opinion about a topic enters an article, it's original research, in violation of wikipedia policy. I have been consistent in maintaining NPOV policy here. And I have focused on the more blatant violations that I've noticed. It is absolutely non-negotiable to call something a "cult" as a fact if it is actually disputed. It must be sourced to whoever said NLP is a cult. Otherwise a lawsuit can land on wikipedia, rather than the notable source who said it. These are blatant violations that easily catch my attention. A number of editors do not seem to grasp the important difference between "NLP is a cult" and "Smith stated that NLP is a cult". A number of editors do not seem to grasp the difference between "NLP is pseudoscience" and "Jones stated that NLP is a pseudoscience". A number of editors do not seem to grasp the importance of URL's for verification of quotes from sources, and instead, still rely on putting someone's name in parenthesis, even though it fails to satisfy requirements for verifiability. I have been consistent in trying to maintain NPOV policy. I haven't gotten through the entire article because every correction I've made so far has been ''reverted'', so I'm spinning my wheels. I am at a loss as to how to get your attention that you are violating policy. And the constant edit warring is tiring me out. A page lock is the appropriate response to edit warring. and that's what this page has been going through. Every correction I've made has been reverted. the article is now undergoing "churn" rather than improving in any detectable manner. Rather than let it escalate until someone violates 3RR, a page lock is an appropriate way to enforce a cooling off period for ''all'' editors. ] 05:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So much for your claims FuelWagon. Here is some evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=28122599&oldid=28118065
FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledge] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::It needs to be sourced, that's the rule. And do any of the main sources of NLP (the guys who invented it) say that NLP can be used for "occult" purposes? Is "occult" something that all NLP practitioners apply NLP to? Or is it something that an individual did, taking NLP and applying it to their pet occult project? Since you refuse to provide any sources, there is no way to know. Names in parens don't help. URL's help. But you don't want to do the work. You just want to insert what you believe is "common knowledge", without anything that satisfies wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. And the way wikipedia works is this: if an editor inserts something that is blatantly biased and POV, but presents it as if it were fact, and no sources are provided, then it needs to be deleted until the requirement for sources are satisfied. You do not get to insert POV statements until someone ''disproves'' them, you must ''prove'' them, and you must ''source'' them, and you must present them as a view ''held by a source'', rather than saying they are "fact" or "common knowledge". This is how wikipedia works. If you can't play by those rules, then you will need to find a medium that allows you to state your personal beliefs as fact and common knowledge without any concerns for wikipedia's requirement for NPOV, verifiability, sources, etc. ] 15:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27220168&oldid=27220062
Showing both a complete lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to research, and a desire to delete facts that are even presented within NLP books. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Note that I deleted this POV statement: ''Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure ].'' and I stand by that as being a blatant NPOV violation. ] 15:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27215067&oldid=27214916
Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. You deleted the fact because you don’t like the sound of New Age, even though NLP is promoted by choosing the New Age category for promotion. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Did you read the quote that you use to support your claim that "NLP is based in the New Age"? Your quote from Dilts doesn't even contain the phrase "New Age", it contains the word "spirituality". Dilts says NLP is based in "spirituality". You try to say NLP is based in "New Age". It may be in the "new age" section of the bookstore, but that's separate from where Dilts says NLP came from. Your "New Age" statement completely ignores the quote. ] 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214916&oldid=27214769
Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::I removed the sentence that says ''". Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure ]."''. I stand by that deletion. The sentence is completely POV and violates wikipedia policy. This must be rewritten in the form of "Smith says that NLP depends on charismatic appeal (URL)". If you won't follow policy, I will continue to delete such POV statements. ] 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214769&oldid=27214615
FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::All of the literature of Lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno does not override the way NPOV policy works. You cannot state as fact something that is disputed by the main proponents/sources of NLP. Unless the main proponents of NLP ''agree'' that NLP is ''pseudoscience'', that label is disputed and must be reported as a view held by a source. That is NPOV policy. ] 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=28122893&oldid=28122599

removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Calling something "charlantry" needs a verifiable source. a name in parenthesis doesn't cut wikipedia requirements for verifiability. You seem unwilling to follow this basic policy. At the very least, an authors name, book title, ISBN, and page number, would at least allow someone to track down the book and verify the accuracy of the quote. I've pointed this out several times and you continue to ignore it. ] 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27880485&oldid=27818827

The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::If the "majority of scientists" who know NLP believe it is pseudoscience, how exactly does someone like a random editor from wikipedia verify that fact? Where does someone find and verify those numbers to know that you aren't inserting your own point of view? This is the purpose of verifiability. Provide a source that shows "a majority of scientists who know NLP believe it to be pseudoscience" and you can report that from the point of view of the source. Until then, the article cannot make such blanket statements. ] 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27595566&oldid=27595302

You removed it before also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::NLP is in the "occult" section of bookstores? I can see it being in the "new age" section (which doesn't determine whether NLP is based on "new age" or whether it is based on "spirituality", but thats a separate issue), but I just have a hard time believeing that the main proponents of NLP would blatantly advertise their books as "fringe therapy" or "occult". if they are blatant, then provide a URL. ] 15:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27136656&oldid=27132316
Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::The "wild and obscure claims" are reported in the form of "NLP is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as ...", which is far more in line with NPOV policy than what was there before. Another "wild claim" is in the form of "Dilts states ...". This is NPOV policy. Report the views from the sources who claim them. ] 16:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27595302&oldid=27592405
It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Unless they actually compare NLP with "Dianetics" and "Landmark", then it is original research. If they do make the comparison, then a URL would allow quick verification, rather than having to take your word for every edit you make to the article. If they don't make the comparison to Dianetics, then it is a villation of policy (no original research) to add the comparison yourself. Please inform me as to whether they make the comparison (and provide a URL to verify) or whether you added that comparison yourself. ] 16:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27213266&oldid=27212963
Further removal of cited facts – not alteration, just blatant, ignorant, censorship. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::''"amoral pseudoscientific psychocults"'' is blatant POV. If you cannot edit articles in compliance with NPOV, you will be reverted. I completely stand by me edit here. ] 16:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27212963&oldid=27212824
the same research-shy ignorance. ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::I got the three names wrong and I apologized for that. But the introduction, again, was written from the point of view of NLP critics. NPOV requires that advocates get to present their point of view, then critics get to present their point of view. This was written by a critic start to finish. You must allow the pro-NLP sources to present their view of NLP or you violate NPOV. ] 16:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27126547&oldid=27126028
You claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than your fuzzy hype. You also write that the methods are empirically untested. Why don’t you actually read the research before you try deleting it?] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, it was a clear NPOV violation. The earlier version explained NLP from the critical poitn of view only. I reverted to a verion that reported NLP from the pro-NLP side as well as the critical pov. If you'll note, my version says "NLP is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as ...". This is clearly following NPOV policy. The article ''must'' report both views, supporters and critics, of NLP. If you insist on only reporting the critcal point of view, you are violating policy and will be reverted. ] 16:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=27214615&oldid=27214427
Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though you state you should write “Drenth and Lilienfeld state that it is pseudo---“ Why did you not do it yourself? And why should anyone else follow your demands when you do not comply with them yourself? ] 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::I have told you numerous times that you must write "Smith says NLP is Pseudoscience" instead of "NLP is pseudoscience (smith)." Ed Poor did a drive by and said the same thing. I believe the mediator told you this as well. You have consistently failed to follow this simply policy requirement, ever. Now you fault me for not fixing your repeated NPOV violations? If that's how you intend to approach editing at wikipedia, then you are making more work for the other editors on this article than you are worth. I'm sorry, but ''you'' must learn NPOV policy, and ''you'' must edit according to it. If you repeatedly violate policy, I am not required to hand-hold you through the hurdles or correct your continuous mistakes. It becomes more work than it is worth. Why don't ''you'' edit according to NPOV, rather than inserting POV statements and complaining that all the other editors don't come in and happily fix your mistakes? ] 16:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)





Hello ]. Here is just a brief search of some evidence for occult/psychic influence and NLP:

http://www.xtrememind.com/Books.htm
Psychic Seduction melds the worlds of science and the occult, ranging from modern brainwave states, neurolinguistic anchoring and chakra/aura manipulation. Psychic Seduction is uni-sex, applicable to any situation and extremely powerful! Attract women.

http://www.servantsofthelight.org/events/sol-events.html
Lectures on NLP for use in the occult

http://www.hypnovision.com/santeria.htm
SANTERIA / VOODOO WHITE MAGICK Tapes use Alpha System NLP-10X to Create the Perfect Alpha Trance State of Mind Needed to... PROGRAM YOUR MIND FOR MAGICK SUCCESS!

http://www.deeptrancenow.com/imprints.htm
Trance and occult in relation to NLP

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2360/tracts/newagefact.html
some advice on occult and NLP (someone's geocite page)

There is tons more that you can find (not that you are even willing to look because you clearly would like to bury the stuff) but the evidence is indeed on the web, in the audio tapes, in seminars and in the NLP books.

Concerning lawsuits, you are really crying wolf there. Misplaced Pages wants (most importantly) a name attributed to a statement. There is no court in the world going to sue wikipedia for stating such verifiable information. I don't mind the lock, but we have managed quite well so far without it. If you are indeed a neutrally minded editor I do suggest you take another good long look in the mirror. Your edits are definitely biased towards NLP. Why do you not argue that the whole article has Mr Smith, mr Jones, Mr prat said blah, all the way through? If you are simply trying to promote NLP, then you should do it somewhere else. The only reason statements are harshly worded on this article is because NLP promoters demand full and extra evidence for the view (in the effort to have it removed), and that leads to the originally softly worded statement being worded exactly as it appears in the scientific paper - Harshly. And then of course they try to remove it anyway, as you have done yourself. The problem is we have so many people wanting to delete cited facts, and scientific views that NLPers obsessive fanaticism shoots them in the foot every time. Remember, scientific evidence shows that NLP is not effective for persuasion, and that is the case here also. ] 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)




HI FuelWagon. Does this fail the test for verifiability?:

Hall (2001) claims that NLP can be used to “create both positive (+) and negative (-) psychic energy which operate at polar opposites from each other”. Energy can be created by using the “right words” (Lakin 2000), and by using inner commitment (Andreas and Faulkner 1996), and rapport can create an alignment of energy levels in two different individuals regardless of physical state (Valentino, 1999). It is also claimed that by using NLP, energy can be directed outside of the body all the way to the very furthest reaches of the of the universe (James and Shephard, 2001).

You removed it from the article, you guilty as sin biased editory you:) You also want to lock this deletion so that nobody can put it back. You claim that you really "care" for NPOV policy, but you are a big fact deleter. You are so so bad. You are badder than Micheal Jackson:) I think you are not to be taken seriously. ] 06:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Do you mean Headley's of the article that makes reference to "amoral pseudoscientific psychocults"? I've addressed that sentence before, and it keeps getting pushed back in. Or do you mean DaveRight's that says NLP is in fact "fringe", "psychic", "covert seduction", and "occult"? I've covered these issues before, but it keeps getting pushed back into the article, and it keeps getting put back in usually embedded inside of some massive reversion. That I reverted some blatant POV statements that has been covered before, and in the process I reverted some other change that you put in that was a sourced quote is an effect of an edit war and churn. The mediator has already asked a couple of times for people to just edit one section at a time, but editors are not following that request. I reverted an edit that contained POV statements and contained edits in multiple locations. Since the mediator is being ignored, and since the same POV problems keep getting reinserted, that qualifies as article "churn" and an edit war, and the appropriate response to that is to request the article be locked. ] 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Its interesting that someone should lock the page when a biased editor (FuelWagon) has just made large and extremely biased edits to the article. All of the quotes there have been referenced at some point, but proNLPers have done so much messing around and removing stuff, those references have been removed. Moreover, most of those statements are completely undisputed. The evidence is all over the books and the web for the fact that NLP is new age, uses occult, psychic seduction and so on. To remove such facts is either due to complete ignorance, or to fanatical censorship. The same goes for the energy section. Novopashin (1994) was a reference for the view that NLP is a psychocult. That reference was actually there before, but NLPers have removed it. I reckon if anyone wants to lock the page, it should be done from a point of knowledge through scholarship, rather than a point of agreement with fanatical censors. Chirio ] 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Yay Alice. Actually, I think its really cool that someone froze the article. Its like a snapshot of FuelWagon caught red handed stealing something.

:OK here's the picture. FuelWagon (and the others) claim that they know something about NPOV. Then they remove facts without any concern for researching them themselves. Not only that, but views were in the process of being discussed. Yesterday Comaze proposed one of his bits of irrelevance, and others disputed this. Without any regard for cooperation, Comaze pasted it up regardless, and removed facts in the process (stuff he doesn't like because it is not narrow enough). Then his friend and co-promoter, FuelWagon, comes along and agrees with Comaze (the biggest fact deleter in the history of this article with more than 10 deletes and reverts for weeks on end).

:So, Fuelwagon has his hand in the burglary, removing common knowledge from the article page.

:In addition, here we all are with a lot of facts on the page, that the proNLP people are trying to remove. They have been trying extremely hard for months. They've been using NLP language, pseudoscientific argument, all to no avail. The fact is, NLP is scientifically unsupported and there is a significant scientific view is that it is just pseudoscientific new age salespitch (Lilienfeld and lots of other folk).

:One interesting point is that sometimes ProNLPers claim that "well, we don't want to remove fact, we just want to balance it properly". Then, as can be seen in our incriminating snapshot of Comaze and Fuelwagon doing the dodgy, we see them removing facts:) Now here's some submodality stuff: Take that picture of Comaze and Fuelwagon sweeping dirt under the carpet, make it bigger, brighten the colours, make their facial expressions more caught-in-the-act and guilty, notice FT2 and GregA praying whiteknuckled that they don't go to prison, and swish it right into your memory circuits. You can remember this image whenever you see biased editors removing previously cited fact that is common knowledge anyhow:) Many cheers ] 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I was caught in the act of dealing with this of the article that makes reference to "amoral pseudoscientific psychocults" and this that says NLP is in fact "fringe", "psychic", "covert seduction", and "occult". Both of these versions are POV. And the mediator has asked you guys to edit one section at a time. That you reinsert blatantly POV stuff like the above and then mix in edits in other sections against the mediators instructions is not my problem. You guys are churning the article, reinserting the above POV statements even after you've been informed multiple times of how they violate NPOV policy. ] 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::No FuelWagon, your edit is consistent with Comaze's and all the other fact censor's edits. Look at the reference and you will find all the information there (Novopashin 2004), and represented quite briefly. Your solution is to doubt first, with complete disregard for good research and delete the information completely (in addition to deleting whole paragraphs that have been cited from NLP books). Read a few NLP books and you will find, occult, psychic phenomena, and so on all over the place and that is consistent with the internet. Any requests from the mediator about POV have been dealt with as well as possible by nonProNLpers. However, any compromises through mediation have always been dismissed by FT2 and others only days after the agreement. Comaze and yourself present information that read's "Grinder strongly disagrees with" and "there is great disagreement between.." That is against NPOV. I repeat, your edits are completely consistent with those of NLP fanatics - to deny that research exists, to delete it, and to put the blame on neutral editors while placing your own POV. Any churning going on is due to people such as yourself deleting facts that should definitely be in the article. Sorry, but that is clear from the way you are behaving. Chiao ] 07:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::::No, AliceDeGrey, you fail to grasp the difference between "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" and "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". That is where NPOV is being violated. You want to state as fact that NLP is pseudoscience and then give someone's name in parenthesis as some sort of irrefutable proof that it is indeed a fact. That does not satisfy wikipedia requirements for NPOV. If you can't grasp the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. Personally, I don't care what Smith said or didn't say, but I do care how it is reported in the article. "NLP is pseudoscience (smith)" is a violation of NPOV policy and needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". If you cannot abide by that policy, you will continue to be reverted. ] 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== Protected page ==

Hello.
So the page has been protected. I must admit I haven't been watching what goes on on the main page... I've considered posting there pointless due to reversions. What is the way forward? Do we propose a modification here, get some discussion, and then have it merged by someone? I'm really not sure of "procedure" (and freezing seems a good idea). ] 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::The irony of the situation -- which clearly escapes you, Comaze and FT2 -- is that NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion and belief modification. Where then are the persuasion skills and belief modification techniques? Why can't you magically disolve all objections? Surely you three NLP super beings can shift the beliefs of a simpleton like me. The inability of you, Comaze and FT2 to persuade in this instance is itself a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of NLP. In the process of attempting to persuade others of the efficacy of NLP -- and in failing abysmally -- you have inadvertantly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Delicious irony. ] 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Please remind yourself with ] policy. Thanks. --] 11:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You keep setting up the strawmen. Sure there are people who make wild claims, there is NLP taught in cults, etc - but it's a minority. The principle of ecology is very important within NLP too, a fundamental respect for others - suggesting that I don't respect others is an insult. ] 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

==Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987==
I think the search on the medline stuff is really illuminating of research.
*7 studies pre 1987 all antiNLP, but all testing representation systems (testing in a way NLP people often say was not effective)
*7 studies post 1987 all proNLP, only one testing a small aspect of rep systems (testing in a way Flavius says does not prove that NLP was the cause of the successful treatments, since controls and placebos were not used enough*).
There are many more experiments, but Flavius says that Medline really identifies the better research.

Now we know that Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) reviewed existing NLP research (39 and 70? articles respectively?)... and the were evaluating representation systems, specifically PREFERRED rep systems. Druckman also says that Bandler met with them and said that preferred rep systems was no longer an important component (though rep systems remains in NLP). This gives us the basis for discussing the research of NLP.
*Druckman & Swets, and Heap, were very good reviews.
*I don't know of any other reviews of their calibre. Platt summarised 70 abstracts from a website and the skeptics dictionary (and these were all Rep System studies!), and Morgan cited Heap.

Remaining recent sources that review NLP negatively are pretty well summarised by your line summaries. ''"Writings by Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), and Drenth (2003) also state that NLP is a pseudoscience."''
*Eisner - "The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions.",
*Lilienfeld - "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology",
*Helisch - a single article on business and NLP,
*Williams - "Encyclopedia of pseudoscience",
*Drenth - "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science" (paper in Studia Psychologica which Medline didn't index for some reason).
Most of these references I would call biased, and I think that together they represent one viewpoint which is probably shared by Flavius* on science+NLP. The other viewpoint being all post 1987 medline research on NLP, plus the 20 or so recommendations for NLP in medline texts, plus all the research on FT2's Research subpage.

I'm interested in comments on this. I wrote something similar to this a month back on the "alternate" page, but with less references to back it up but maybe this is a way of representing it all. Thoughts? ] 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:52, 3 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neuro-linguistic programming article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured article candidateNeuro-linguistic programming is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 29, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconPsychology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLinguistics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNeuroscience
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.


Shortened Citation Notes

The article currently uses a mix of referencing styles and there are missing page numbers for quotes or what may or may not be paraphrased text but we don't know because there are missing page numbers. See Template:Sfn for a guide how add page numbers and quotes. --Notgain (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose, it's disruptive. See WP:REFVAR, which requires a WP:CONSENSUS from the regular editors of the page before you may do so: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." Skyerise (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would contend that it was not "merely on the grounds of personal preference". I was looking at the best practises in other Good and Featured Article candidates. I'm personally most comfortable with the APA format but done research papers using Harvard referencing style with footnotes. I was thinking that style was the best for this article. Given that the article covers critiques from counseling psychology, coaching psychology, communications theorists, sociology and linguistics, its not simple. Do you have examples of article with similar content and multidisciplinary critiques? What referencing style worked best? --Notgain (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I also notice that @Newimpartial: reverted you on several occasions just after you broke a bunch of citations by trying the same thing back on 5 May, a day or so before I noticed what you were doing. So that's 2 opposed. Skyerise (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ve already explained this and it is also in the edit comments. I fixed that citation errors. I didn’t know about the display error setting which was off by default. Again, I did appreciate your help. When I get more time, I’ll go back and justify each change. —Notgain (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Skyerise explained to you, you can't just change citation style without consensus. If you want to do changes you have to clearly justify them in order to show other editors your reasons or concerns about it, and if these go according to the WP:CS. Rodrigo IB (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about needing consensus. My first step should have been proposing these referencing changes here on the talk page. Would you be willing to join a discussion about how to best improve the consistency and verifiability of the article's references? --Notgain (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
As the WP:CS sustains. Citations are key for verifiability. Looking at the changes you did, im concerned that these could compromise the access of common editors and readers to those sources. Which is very crucial for this article.
Editors with their own personal bias can incur in practices (like meat-puppetry) that violate WP:V,WP:NPOV,WK:STYLE.
The controversies sorrounding NLP obligate us as editors to make sure we are not doing original research. Which, for surprise of no one, has to be verified by others. For that reason, i think is naive to compare it to other articles just because different citation styles were used, or due to their extensivity in other disciplines. Rodrigo IB (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are several ways to add pagenumbers in/with reftag-refs (not surprisingly), including Template:Rp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    The inconsistent styles and missing page numbers make WP:V and editing difficult. Have you come across similarly complex articles that successfully used {{Rp}} or other templates to maintain readability while ensuring accurate citation information? Especially ones covering multiple disciplines, as this article does? The immediate issue is that there are paraphrasing of sources without clear page numbers which makes WP:V difficult. Another issue is that are duplicates of the same sources across the article. That was an advantage of using {{efn}} and {{sfn}}. We are already using {{r}} in the article. <ref> is also often combined with {{sfn}}. Also some of the quotes in the current article are inside the cite element when they would be better handled as an {{efn}}. We have critiques from linguistics, counseling psychology, anthropology and sociology. --Notgain (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have nothing against sfn etc as a style, though ref-tag is always my choice when I start articles, with rp if necessary. IMO reftag is generally more understandable for general and new users, and both VE and source editors benefits from named refs if used. But an article should be consistent, and if consensus here is to use sfn or whatever, that's fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Fwiw, my knee-jerk reaction when scrolling through the ref section, is that "traditional reftag" seems to be the majority use, so if I was to start working on consistency, I would change the "Jeremiah 1995." style ones and get rid of the "Works cited" sections. But if the primary/secondary division is considered valuable, that might not work. I think some Wikipedians consider the more academic look of sfn-style a mark of quality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm told that {{cite Q}} would solve one of the issues I had with existing use of <ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal|...}}</ref>. {{cite Q}} enables you to pull the reference data from wikidata by using its Q ID. It was too verbose and made it difficult to maintain especially in source mode. My proposal is for any citations that are current citations that are defined inline such as "<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite journal..." that if that citation is on wikidata then we is replace it with "<ref name="Joe-1995">{{cite Q|...". That will reduce some of the clutter and retain existing r and rp template use. Then we can use r and rp. Then if there is consensus to use sfn then we can adopt that together with efn which is already in use in the current article. --Notgain (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    No, you should revert to the previous citation style per consensus and WP:REFVAR, full stop. Remsense 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Do you know what I mean by <ref name="...">{{Cite Q|...}}? It just moves the clutter of the reference out of the content. That is one of the biggest issues with the article in its current state. Its still using the same citation style. It is a wrapper for {{Citation}} that returns formatted citation from statements stored on a Wikidata item (referred to by its Q identifier or QID) for citable source. It would be a good interim solution while consensus is sought for sfn which is my preference as it would be far more professional. efn has been used in the article for years. --Notgain (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I know what it means, I've used it myself. It is a different method of referencing, even if the output looks the same. The words "method" and "style" are used interchangeably on the guideline page, but the reason underlying changes in both is the changes are disruptive to others, hence why the guideline is to defer to the first format used in a dispute: other editors who want to edit this page don't want to suddenly swap to having to look up Wikidata codes. You seem increasingly unwilling to understand that. Remsense 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Do you understand that we are currently using <ref>{{Cite Journal |...}}</ref> in the article and post people use tools already like to populate the details of that from the DOI, ISBN, etc. So using <ref>{{Cite Q |...}}</ref> might actually be less work, and they'd be familiar anyway. The editors who don't undertstand wiki syntax usually use a visual editor or they just rely on other wikipedians to clean up after them. I guess we'll need to wait for others to chime in with their preferences. --Notgain (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Do you understand that whether you think they'd like it better doesn't matter? Remsense 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    some like the simplicity of ref even thought sfn is technically better. There are featured articles that use ref only but the longer ones with notes and many references prefer sfn. —Notgain (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Again, as pointed out just above, that is irrelevant here. The only relevant thing is whether you have consensus or not. Clearly, you don't. Skyerise (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I’d like to hear the arguments for and against sfn v ref, with examples. Besides none of the regular contributors to this specific article have raised objections so there is no evidence of clear consensus from regular editors. I have enabled errors so I can correct the errors you complained about. I think now consensus can be sought through editing and discussion. —-Notgain (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    No, the burden to demonstrate a change is preferable is on you. If no one agrees, then you may not make the change. (You have; no one has; you may not.) People are entitled to establish consensus regardless of contributions; frequent editors do not own the articles in question. Remsense 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I must have misunderstood what you were saying on AN/I. I thought your earlier point was that changing from ref to sfn referencing format would be unwelcome because of the learning curve for the existing or previous editors of this article, or that existing editors might not like it. You said, "the changes are disruptive to others" (above). I assumed you were referring to previous editors of this article. How could it possibly be disruptive to edits who have never edited this article? I assumed you meant you needed to obtain consensus from them (previous editors of this article). None of them have commented yet. However, the silence from the previous contributors could be interpreted in different ways. It could mean that they are indifferent to the change, that they are unaware of the discussion (most likely scenario), or that they are still forming opinions. Anyway, I'm going to help out at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors not to recruit or canvas support but to learn more about the interaction between sfn, efn and ref formats - as well as learning more about WP:V --Notgain (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'd note that converting references to Cite Q en masse would be contentious even without CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    my intention for suggesting sfn was to enhance readability and maintainability. With sfn, you define the reference using cite templating in the bibliography. Assuming ref is inadequate too, do you know of an alternative solution that meets that need given the huge number of citations on this article? —Notgain (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    120 inline citations is simply not a particularly high number, and is adequately accommodated by any common means of citation. Remsense 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm well aware of how {{sfn}} templates work, but your supposition that ref tags are inadequate is simply your own personal opinion. You won't find any concensus that one form of referencing is better than another, the editing community is deeply split on the matter. This is why CITEVAR warns against changing style types, as it causes unnecessary drama that wastes editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Afaik, neither VE or WP:REFTOOLBAR has any "format ref as sfn/harvn" option, is that correct? Also, no ref-tag, no named ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Kind of, VE supports adding templates so it supports {{sfn}} (as long as you know what they are), the same would be true of {{r}}, {{ref}}, {{efn}}, etc. I don't think the REFTOOLBAR point is relevant, if you already using source editing then using the toolbar to format sfn/harv would take longer than typing it.
    I don't think REFTOOLBAR has any ability to re-use a refname, but again it would be quicker to type it, VE certainly can though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    Reftoolbar absolutely has the ability to re-use a refname, "Named references", to the right of the ref-template drop-down. Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar/2.0. In VE it's Cite > Re-use. In source, you name them with the "Ref name" field in the template window. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    Your right, I had missed that in REFTOOLBAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm not super educated on the nuances of citation styles, but I feel like the citation style used on this article in particular is not super important. I think the bigger issue is that when Notgain tried to convert it all to {{sfn}} without gaining consensus, they did so incorrectly, and broke citations in the process. I've used {{sfn}} and tend to prefer it with more complicated articles such as this one, but if other editors are opposed, I'm prepared to respect that; I'm not convinced Notgain is, which is another issue. (Also, the corresponding ANI thread on this issue ended without clear consensus and without admin closure; I'm not sure what to make of it, but it feels relevant.) Askarion 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    sfn was it is easier to read in source mode but I now have source highlighting so I’ve settled. I’m not going to push sfn on the great unwashed. —15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Druckman & Swets 1988

Before I forget, can someone who has editing rights update the reference to Druckman & Swets 1988 report? The consensus of the committee was discussed in chapter 8. Note that the DOI in the current reference to Druckman&Swets 1988 is incorrect (it points to a book review of the committee's consensus report, not the report itself), please change to: {{cite book | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}} or if you want to include the editors: {{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=Daniel | last2=Swets | first2=John A. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | chapter=8: Social Processes | pages=133-166 | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | ref={{sfnref | National Academies Press | 1988}}}} That was a honeytrap for some researchers copy and pasting from wikipedia without checking sources. Otherwise, there's the named reference version for those who prefer that style: <ref name="Druckman-1988">{{cite book | last1=Druckman | first1=D. | last2=Swets | first2=J. | title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques | publisher=National Academies Press | publication-place=Washington, D.C. | date=1988-01-01 | isbn=978-0-309-03792-1 | doi=10.17226/1025 | pages=133-166 | chapter=8: Social Processes}}</ref> --Notgain (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of Druckman and Swets (1988) as a reference to support the statements #1 "Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method" and #2 "Bandler led several unsuccessful efforts to exclude other parties from using NLP" is problematic. Druckman (2004) clarifies that the panel evaluated techniques like NLP for their potential in "enhancing learning, improving motor skills, altering mental states, managing stress, or improving social processes." The panel's focus was on NLP's potential for social influence, not its therapeutic applications. They found NLP's assumptions and effectiveness in social influence to be unsupported by psychological evidence. Its worth noting that the panel was "impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique," this interest in modeling does not directly speak to NLP's effectiveness as a therapeutic method. The fact that the planned NLP training was not implemented could suggest the type of "unsuccessful efforts" hinted at in statement 2, but this remains speculative. I couldn't find anything in the cited source to directly support statement 2. Therefore, it's recommended to remove Druckman and Swets (1988) as a supporting reference for these two statements. --Notgain (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
•Denied, while the Druckman and Swets (1988) aim is not the therapeutic effectiveness of NLP, it touches the lack of empirical evidence on representational systems, you even quoted this from the article: "Numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP's assumptions OR effectiveness as a therapeutic method"
The review is clearly relevant. Rodrigo IB (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. Statement #1 was from the current article, not the source. The NRC (Druckman and Swets 1988) did not review NLP as for its therapeutic application. And you have have not addressed statement #2 which is not suppprted by the source either. If you think it is please provide page numbers to substantiate for verifiability. —Notgain (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems you're reading statement #1 as "and/or", which would make the Druckman & Swets (1988) source relevant because it addresses the lack of empirical evidence for NLP's assumptions. However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement. It is important to distinguish between NLP's assumptions, and its effectiveness in different areas of application - whether it be therapeutic, management or social influence, as we discussed earlier. To be clear while the NRC (Druckman & Swets 1988) provides a strong review into NLP's assumptions, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. Other reviews do. Therefore, I’d prefer to cite separate, relevant sources for each part of statement #1. This will aid in WP:V. —Notgain (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
What? Where is stated that the sources for that particular case should adress both?
Even you proposed a section around persuasion, which is one of the different approaches of NLP. The whole article, including that single sentence is referring to NLP in general.
It gets worst when we analize your own statement: "However, if we interpret "or" to mean that both parts of the statement need separate supporting evidence, then a source that doesn't address NLP's therapeutic effectiveness might not be suitable for this statement."
For your own argument then a source that adresses just one aspect is still valid, because it's providing evidence for a specific claim; it would be a problem if and only if was the only source cited to sustain the lack of evidence in regards to the therapeutic approach of NLP; which is not the case.
The "interpretation" (which this is not about) you highlight plays against you.
I don't get it. Rodrigo IB (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I hear your point about the use of the word “or” in the statement #1 and how it could be interpreted to mean that a source addressing just one aspect is still valid. However, my premise is that for a more accurate representation of the sources, it would be ideal if each part of the statement is supported by citing relevant sources that directly address the respective claim in line with WP:V.
While the Druckman & Swets (1988) source does review NLP’s assumptions from a psychological perspective, it does not directly address its therapeutic effectiveness. It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness. So my suggestion was to use separate, relevant systematic review, critical review or meta analyses to substantiate each each part of the statement in line with WP:MEDRS. The textbook you mentioned (that had a section critiquing the use of NLP in influence) would not meet that criteria either but would also require page numbers for verifiability, and it is not a systematic review.
Statement #1 makes specific claims about NLP’s assumptions and its therapeutic effectiveness, which are distinct aspects of NLP. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure that the sources cited for this statement directly support the respective claims in line with WP:NOR. —Notgain (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
So we agree but we don't agree... I still don't get it.
"It is not a systematic review, meta analysis or critical review of ‘’’its therapeutic’’’ effectiveness.", and how is that a problem?, did you even notice that is not the only source listed in the specific note (which is the k one) for those affirmations right?
As i said, it would be a problem if it was the only source for such affirmations. Which is not the case. Rodrigo IB (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The use of endnote to reference Statement #1 (S1) without page numbers makes it difficult to confirm if the claims are supported. Its unclear which source supports which part of the statement raising issue of WP:OR. The statement mentions "numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses," yet none of the six references in are meta-analyses, so it is misleading. Witkowski (2010) is the only more recent quantitative and qualitative literature review of the empirical evidence (there are more recent ones that could be added). Sharpley (1983/87) and Heap (1988) focuses on the contested PRS. Heap (1988) explicitly states that NLP's effectiveness in clinical settings had yet to be experimentally evaluated at that time. Von Bergen et al. (1997) is unrelated, focusing on NLP in human resources development (HRD) - there are more recent review related to HRD. So I suggest page numbers should be added, and the relevance of each source to the statement should be clarified. Modifying Statement #1 to accurately reflect the cited sources and potentially incorporating additional, relevant meta-analyses or systematic reviews. --Notgain (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Witkowski 2010 is a meta-analysis.
The sources themselves cite other studies and meta-analysis which aren't as accessible (the use of public access sources is something that we as editors must try to implement, there are instances in which a reliable source is behind a paywall and shouldn't be discarted. This aspect kind of limits the sources that can be used by Misplaced Pages, more on that here: WP:Reliable sources/Cost.) Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Witkowski 2010 is a literature review, not a meta-analysis. The paywall issue, while important, doesn’t address the relevance and accuracy of sources. Druckman & Swets (1988) doesn’t directly address therapeutic effectiveness, so it may not be the most suitable reference for that part of the statement. —Notgain (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The wikipedia article of Meta-analysis as well: "Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review procedure."
The wikipedia article for systematic reviews: "In practice, when one is mentioned the other may often be involved, as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review even if it includes the meta-analytical component. " Which is the case for Witkowski 2010 (which is not a literature review as you said), and is presented in the page 60.
I didn't explained myself well on the subject of accessibility, sorry for that; but i brought it to the table because we are also discussing citation problems within the article and the changes you have been trying to do. The thing is that we cannot put more and more sources for a series of affirmations. For that we need to follow certain guidelines like the mentioned WP:Reliable sources/Cost, to ensure the WP:V, and WP:NOR, the other issue is that the changes you did would infringe not just the previous citation style but the "orientation" sort to speak of editors of what sources are public, hard to verify (like offline sources) or behind a paywall. This is important because it could help improve the article if an affirmation hasn't been verified.
The sources more than just once conclude with the fact that NLP lacks empirical evidence. There is no original research problem in such affirmations. Rodrigo IB (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, Witkowski 2010 is a critical analysis, not a systematic review. It lacks a pre-defined protocol, specific research question, and rigorous assessment of evidence quality, which are key characteristics of a systematic review. See WP:MEDRS—01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Witkowski 2010Notgain (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
If the statement #1 is claiming that “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have failed to show evidence for NLP’s assumptions or effectiveness as a therapeutic method,” then it should be supported by references to actual literature reviews and meta-analyses. There are no meta analyses directly cited, so either add a citation if it exists and meets WP:RS, or revise the statement for accuracy. —Notgain (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The systematic review of Witkowski is rigorous enough in its analysis of the quality of the presented evidence. If you have any concern in such aspect then clarify it, be specific for those concerns.
There is no affirmation that violates WP:NOR with the cited sources. Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
In the letter to the editor of the Polish Psychological Bulletin, Aleksandra cite Witkowski 2010 as a "systematic review" Witkowski, Tomasz; Luszczynska, Aleksandra (2013-12-01). "Letters to Editor". Polish Psychological Bulletin. 44 (4): 462–464. doi:10.2478/ppb-2013-0049. ISSN 0079-2993. along with Sturt 2012 doi:10.3399/bjgp12X658287. So at least one third party source refer to it as a systematic review. However, it does not meet the PRISMA criteria for a systemic review and there is no statistical meta-analysis. So I still maintain it would be better described a critical review of empirical research. There are a number of systematic reviews that came after Witkowski 2010 as we discussed earlier. And I think there is at least one 2015 meta-analysis, Zaharial, Reiner and Schütz 2015 PMID 26609647 that has not been cited yet. --Notgain (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The meta-analysis of Schütz et al is flawed. I'm reading it and is worrying that the total of studies that were analyzed were just 12.
But there is another issue.
"Overall, we finally included 12 studies with a total number of individuals of 658 (studies that analysed different subgroups from the same population). On average, the numbers of participants in each study was small, ranging between 12 and 115 subjects".
One component of the inclusion-exclusion criteria: "Not the right population: studies conducted on healthy individuals with social/psychological problems (n=19)"
Data analysis: "The inspection of the funnel plot was done visually."
Jeffrey Chan and Amer Harky warn of the inclusion of non-randomized studies without risk of bias assessment (I mention it too because the small commentary also mentions the risks involved in methods that use visual inspection of heterogeneity across studies).
Schwarzer et al. give a more comprehensive picture of the risks sorrounding meta-analysis that use small studies. Like the one you cite. Im well aware that Schütz et al. conducted a publication bias analysis: "Begg and Majumdar's rank correlation nor Egger’s regression test was significant (p=0.73 and p=0.45, respectively), which indicates no publication bias."
But, as Schwarzer et al. Point out other possible causes: "Another possible cause of small-study effects is clinical heterogeneity between patients in large and small studies; e.g., patients in smaller studies may have been selected so that a favourable outcome of the experimental treatment may be expected. In the case of a binary outcome, also a mathematical artefact arises from the fact that for the odds ratio or the risk ratio, the variance of the treatment effect estimate is not independent of the estimate itself Lastly, it can never be ruled out that small-study effects result from mere coincidence . Empirical studies have established evidence for these and other kinds of bias . There is a vast range of tests for small-study effects , most of them based on a funnel plot which will be introduced in Sect. 5.1.1"
My concerns is that the meta-analysis you brought to the table is a false-positive, even the authors write: "there is a major lack of high-quality data from observational, experimental studies or randomized trials on this field, Up until now there is insufficient data to recommend this form of therapy strongly in reducing some psychosocial problems." Making it an inconclusive study. Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Let’s not cherry pick. I return to the Statement #1 that currently mentions “numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses”. The limitations of these studies should be mentioned if in line with WP:NORNotgain (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Cherry pick what?
Are you really trying to reach a consensus or not? because i don't see you actually addressing the points that emerge of the sources that you, you as a proponent of them should be considering and analyzing in a careful manner.
You know what's the worst?, that i shouldn't have made that analysis, not only because is your responsability to at least read the sources you want to implement, but because the page talk is not for that. Neither of what is your opinion of what is or what is not a systematic review. As you said, reliable sources refer to Witkowski 2010 as a systematic review. End of the debate.
There is no original research involved, period. Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That was an astute observation. The funnel plot inspection in the Schütz et al. study was done visually, which can introduce subjectivity and potential bias. While they noted this limitation and the small number of studies, this impacts the robustness of findings. This is amplified because the authors (e.g. Peter Schütz) appear to be practitioners (not academic researchers) which introduces another source of potential subjectivity bias. If it were to be cited, the limitations would need to be made clear. I maintain that Witkowski 2010 is not a systematic review or meta-analysis - it was a scathing critical review of empirical literature. It does NOT meet the PRISMA criteria for systematic review or meta-analysis as noted earlier. I encourage you to consider these points and reevaluate. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. --Notgain (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Why you keep insisting on the PRISMA declaration?.
I don't know if you are aware, but the PRISMA declaration was sort of an "update" to the QUORUM declaration in 2009. Which it's main focus at the beginning was clinical meta-analysis and systematic reviews. It was not as adopted in 2010 like now, even the paper presenting the declaration was published at the beginning of 2010.
Still tho, Witkowski meets the QUORUM declaration. But the declaration is not necessary in order to consider something as a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It just secures that the data analysis is not biased in certain ways. Rodrigo IB (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Morgan 1993

Removed the following from further reading because it is impossible to find and its outdated or near impossible to find: Morgan, Dylan A. (1993). "Scientific Assessment of NLP". Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register. Spring. 1993. --Notgain (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past in Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive_4#Morgan and Heap. The consensus was to replace any citations with citations to Heap. But that was already done and Morgan isn't used, so I agree removing it from Further reading is fine. Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like it... These were the Heap papers:
--Notgain (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Really bad sentence ?

"NLP posits that consciousness can be divided into conscious and unconscious components". Seriously? MarmotteiNoZ 04:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: