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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:11, 21 October 2005 editJPLogan (talk | contribs)181 edits →Research← Previous edit Revision as of 09:27, 21 October 2005 edit undoJPLogan (talk | contribs)181 edits →Provocative therapy...Next edit →
Line 422: Line 422:
Should this statement read provocative (rather than attack?) therapy? Should this statement read provocative (rather than attack?) therapy?
--] 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC) --] 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


==To do==

I brevified the list of to dos at the top of this page because we have easily handled those tasks already. NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop. NLP has been defined for the article and we are writing about that. We really don't need to be re-organizing the sections all the time. The merging finished ages ago, and stuff was integrated from the alternative page even before the NLPpromoters started adding extra. I certainly saw no need to merge any more info or hype over two weeks ago. All you really need to do is accept the facts and get on with NPOV.] 09:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:27, 21 October 2005

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Neuro-linguistic programming article
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them a ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions.
Talk page guidelines
Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

To-do list for Neuro-linguistic programming: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-02-01

This whole dispute is going nowhere

It seems that one of the main edits in question is this. I first learned of NLP from my optomotrit Dr. Erwin Jay; I later researched the topic that night. I researched this topic again, only to confirm that NLP is highly variant and vague in all but a few key points, such as program one's self(in one or more aspects) to perform more effectiviely by adapting a mindset modeled after one that already seems to work. I have seen nothing that says that NLP cannot involve such "energy"; such opinions will vary from one NLP enthusiast to another...

Comaze, I would have to say that your reversions are quite tedious and unproductive. While disagreement is fine, reverting articles all day does nothing but increase stress. For such a vague idea as NLP, you should not be so selective in which views you keep on the article.

Faxx, and anyone else for that matter, if you don't have anything constructive to add, then leave.

As for the others, making a dramatic list of criticism of Comaze, especially during edit wars, is extremely futile(see Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive_5). I have been through this type of thing before and learned from it. Also, he has done nothing to get banned(indef. block), so such suggestions are just ridiculous. If you do want an RfC against Comaze, then put it elsewhere. Article talk pages are not the place for this.Voice of All 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All, thank you for your comments. I will focus my attention on discussing to establish consensus (especially on controversial issues). --Comaze 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, so I might stay, but I still have to bone up on some of the smaller details. I am considering archiving this talk so we have a clean slate; this helped out for the Ted Kennedy article (altough ultimately some disputes were never resolved due to trolls). I don't see Comaze as a troll, so this should work if executed, assuming everyone is willing to drop the hatchet...hopefullyVoice of All 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceofAll - welcome and thank you for joining. I think archiving this talk would be good - there's already an archive made till last month, expanding that with the current discussion would work? COuld you also provide some guidelines (what does "drop the hatchet" mean?) for us to work to in this period? (or do we just work as normal?)
The description you give (program one's self to perform more effectiviely by adapting a mindset modeled after one that already seems to work.) is an interesting one. Yes NLP is about modeling, taking on someone elses patterns of doing something, almost always to become more effective. The other thing that doesn't vary are some principles, and a set of patterns generally taught (some useful in modeling someone, some useful in taking on a new pattern, some simply modeled from therapists). From there what people did with the modeling and the patterns goes all over the place - though I've been surprised that when reading from prominent NLPers the message is more consistent (and comes back to the basic modeling + some core patterns + some of their own patterns).
I'd appreciate it if you could also read the parallel page (linked at the top of the article). The differences in the 2 versions will give you a good idea of where our differences are, I think (note that as of a week ago an edit-difference doesn't work). GregA 08:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keeping it productive; Voice_Of_All

Well, I found that listing Comaze's activities helped progress a lot (the Comaze reversions/deletions were reduced to one or two daily). I will move it to arbitration though just to see what they think of it. I think its about time. If it stops him from winding everyone up on their personal talk pages, then that would be great.

Totally grateful that someone else is writing about how vague and broad NLP is. Some proNLP editors here seem to think that only a few obscure epistemology books are warranted, with the theoretical or scientific ones being automatically deleted. I feel the page itself is coming along fine with NPOV (albeit quite slowly). Hopefully proNLPers will also stop demanding umpteen refs per criticism. Personally, I just want to keep it all in order. CheersHeadleyDown 04:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Totally grateful that someone else is writing about how vague and broad NLP is." I am not sure what you mean by that. (Nevermind, I thought I saw disgraceful, not grateful, I am too tired--need sleep:-))

NLP is basically like innovation in engineering--see what behavior patterns works and integrate it into your system. While spirituality can certainly be added, it is neither a contradiction to NLP nor an implicit feature.Voice of All 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

organized crime uses of NLP speech elicitations

Because NLP can use specific linguistic cues to elicit speech from designated subjects, a call-demand network operates methodically to collect words and phrases, primarily through the telephone. Network operators can also be said to razz their subjects, in addition to other judgmental cues applied during call sessions such as scolding, condemnation, coaxing, cajoling, threatening, teasing, and wheedling. All words and phrases elicited during each 'session' are used to affect social change in some way, using vocal demand strategies as evidence of the application of NPL to seek rewards, enrichment, or social approval outside the range of the subject respondent. Beadtot 04:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)10/18/2005 04:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is an interesting line of study. I remember reading something about this in one criminology tome a few years ago. It was about jurisprudence, but there was something about con men and persuasion also. I will try to dig it up, but if you know of any other sources, that'd be great.CheersHeadleyDown 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Beadtot, Do you mean the other NLP (ie. Natural Language Processing)? --Comaze 05:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like he means NeuroLP, in addition to various other strategies (eg the logical fallacies can be USED to argue - ie attack the man instead of what he says, etc), even all the things the wikipedia say NOT to use can be used by people to argue reasonably effectively (just not accurately). If you have effective patterns of communication (and influence), people who want to communicate effectively (and influence) will use them (for good and for bad). GregA 07:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The word 'Programming' indicates some degree of volition, which occurs as one result of 'Natural language processing' which human organisms necessarily engage. 207.200.116.8 18:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 10/19/2005 Beadtot

NLP info

Sensory acuity

I want to add something about sensory acuity. This may go in the NLP Modeling (or NLP training) section. Basically, sensory acuity emphasizes the development and calibration skills of five physical senses: visual perception, hearing (sense), taste, feeling, and olfaction. Comments please. --Comaze 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem useful - it's another thing that differentiates NLP from other change work. I don't know where it would go - it's something crucial to modeling excellence as well as calibrating a subjects state for change work. GregA 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess we can find a place for sensory acuity now - if we're listing 5 elements of information gathering followed by "eye accessing cues" and "meta-model", it's worth having sensory acuity added (for detecting eye movements, subtle changes in physiology (breathing/posture/movement)(and voice tone). Headley also was saying earlier that perceptual positions doesn't belong in the presupposition area, it may belong here (as part of information gathering). It kinda brings the whole thing together in some way.. though again, I'm still working on the full form in my head (please comaze don't post anything yet - throw in some ideas!). ANyone?. GregA 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Metamodel

I think we should look at merging the metamodel stuff from the parallel page.GregA 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged.Voice of All 00:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Modeling

I think we should look at merging the modeling stuff from the parallel page. Also, Dilts just announced that his previous modeling has often not been NLP-modeling, so we should include that. GregA 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged.Voice of All 00:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Useful links?

Hi everyone and VoiceOfAll. When I put in a link, I read a passage and think "is there some more information that someone interested in this page would like to read, to further their knowledge of this subject". Often there is. There are also things we can link to that aren't really related - eg: Bandler taught a novice woman... - where it distracts. ... Where do you think a link belongs, and where doesn't it? I see VoiceOfAll putting links into years - like "Bandler 1988" - is this distracting as it doesn't further the readers knowledge of NLP or Bandler, or not? In the case of a year, I think the readers would notice that pretty quickly and know every year is just generic (as long as we never link to the actual "bandler-88" book). ... Thanks for your thoughts :) GregA 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it is a bit annoying, so away I go to edit page...this will take a while to delete though...:)Voice of All 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think that all the reference links are back to normal now.Voice of All 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

THanks ViewOA. Just some of my usability/design background coming out :)

NPOVing

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_archive2#Summary_of_reasoning_for_my_changes

Once again, I'll put a smaller amount of these in and also see if I can be even more neutral. If someone could comment specifically on disagreements this would be excellent. I firmly believe that a NPOV will only come about through discussing, I can't do it alone (it'll be my POV), and neither can anyone else. GregA 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg, Just write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). A test for good NPOV is that when a third party reads it, she cannot cannot detect bias. I am going to work on my style as well. For every change we do, let's consider it from the perspective of all major viewpoints. That is something we need to reach consensus on, what groups represent the major viewpoints for this article? --Comaze 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I know you and I largely agree on what we say, but with lack of feedback from others let me know if my stuff can be improved? (also, I think we disagree with HOW something is said...)
Your question is really interesting! I would guess the viewpoints are:

  1. people who have been burned by NLP
  2. people who have had a great experience with NLP
  3. people who simply don't understand what NLP is
  4. trainers wanting to explain NLP
  5. psychologists wanting to test NLP

And these overlap. What do you thinkGregA 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine summary, though you blipped it out as I was previewing it. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary of reasoning for my changes(REPOSTED)

Reposted user's edit explanations.Voice of All 00:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've shown the existing quote from the page as bullet point, and answered beneath:

  • Originally developed for use in psychotherapy

Well.. no it wasn't. NLP was developed to work out the difference that made the difference, to model. On the path to this, Bandler wanted to know what he was doing (with Gestallt) that his students weren't doing. Grinder had no interest in therapy at all as he considered it a method of getting people to conform to societies expectations. They were both interested in modeling and human communication.

agreed.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NLP has since been applied

It is useful to clarify that NLP modeling and NLP processes have both been applied.

OK.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Empirical studies have concluded that NLP is unsupported...

Headley keeps saying this is the same thing as "studies have not supported". I don't think so. And if he thinks it's the same why does he care which way it's worded?

Noted.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NLP emphasizes the mind-body-spirit connection.

No it doesn't. Some NLP practitioners do, it's up to them. As do some trainers.

I definetely agree here.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I added: "NLP's primary focus is on modeling, theories are secondary (they affect implicit modeling)

Is this disputed?

OK.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The swish pattern... primarily focused on... engrams

Some people might think so. I liked Comaze's comment that the swish pattern is based on internal representations, which is undebatable.

OK.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The NLP practioners goal is primarily to change a person's state and reprogram their beliefs and self-beliefs

Really? Where did you get this? The goal is either to model someone or help them change in a way they want. THey may use state change, belief change, etc.

Agreed. That is not their primary goal, but it will likely happen, but it is not thier goal.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • NLP practitioners claim to help clients replace false perceptions...

I wouldn't claim that's what I do (depends on the client), I would claim it's something I can do.

This line doesn't seem to useful.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • some NLP patterns of persuasion within NLP seduction are designed to create negative beliefs

What's "NLP seduction"? NLP patterns aren't designed to create negative beliefs - at a pattern level they can influence beliefs, what beliefs are influenced is up to the person doing it. OK.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • NLP has been applied to many applications outside of therapy.

"applied to many applications"? should say "applied to many fields"

Agreed.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC) "NLP has been applied outside of therapy" implies it is a therapy. Therapy is one of the fields it's applied to. LGATs may be one place (is Hall your only reference?) but if you want to pick one specific 'unethical' application, you should add a counter example (I added Christian).

It is not really therapy, altough it could be integrated into it, so that wording is a bit fuzzy.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "practitioners claim it's not uncommon... (phobia 10mins)

Some practitioners claim. Not all. Also JP implies that Griffin says all 3 of the claims (including "make someone fall in love with you in 5 minutes" - but this is not clear. Does he?

  • claimed that the presuppositions of Jesus have been identified using NLP modeling

You then link to a site unrelated to NLP modeling. I changed this to "some Christian ministers have identified principles used by Jesus"... a far different claim! (and this is the link you give) You also want to write about Dilts Jesus modeling, but this is repeated 10 lines down - do you need twice?

  • Jesus' modeling,

you remove that Grinder says this is not NLP modeling. Dilts also released today a paper defining NLP modeling under Grinder's terms and calling what he's done elsewhere as "Analytical Modeling".

Some of the far out clams seem to be strawmen, they probably should go. They don't represent NLP as a wholeVoice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Upward eye movements indicate visual....

I added that eye movements correlate with internal representations and people vary.. upward movements generally mean visual. Why don't you like this?

  • NLP advocates connect this with hemispheres....

I combined this with the same hemisphere stuff 2 paragraphs further down. Problem?

  • Unsupported research stuff...

I moved this around but kept everything. I wanted to change stuff but for now thought I'd keep peace by simply neatening it up. Read it... it's all there. I did add that Heap and Druckman acknowledged flaws in the research - which is true!

  • Meta-model can be reduced to "what specifically"....

This is Grinder's current model, and should be written as such. I also separated milton model into a second paragraph.

  • The first subjects of study were claimed by Bandler and Grinder to be experts in the fields...

I changed this to "The first subjects of study were from the fields... surely that's no debate?

  • Eisner: "exaggerated claims by the more professionally unqualified NLP certificated practitioner
  • and: "qualified NLP practitioners can be hired for more complex work

I changed the second to say "professionally qualified NLP certificated practitioners" and JP said that was wrong (which I thought too, but someone quoted it). So instead I switched the first to "qualified NLP practitioners"... okay? I also removed "can be hired" - is payment relevant to whether it requires external assistance?

  • Neuro linguistic Psychotherapy

added another NLPsychotherapy link.

  • Coaching... in personal development fields similar to EST...

EST is not relevant to the application of Coaching. I moved it (to not make waves) to the last paragraph.

OK.Voice of All 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me what of any of the above you disagree with. Headley is saying it is "NLP rhetoric, ... spam excuse, .... and hype from NLP". I find none of that above. GregA 11:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Research

Hello Voice_of_All. I believe your changes have been quite reasonable. I do have some suggestions though, regarding research. The Heap and Einspruch statements (methodology problems) are both very out of date, and really don't have the weight that they seem to represent presently. Firstly, Heap's statements are 18 years old, and are more of a case of scientific fussyness, and Eispruch's research was disproved in 1987, when researchers conducted further studies and found Einspruch had been hyping things (and the study is 20 years old). Of course, we have other reviews (Levelt 1995, Drenth 2003, Lilienfeld et al 2003 and Eisner 2000) who all say that NLP is unsupported, and that Einspruch was wrong. They (amongst others) also conclude that NLP is pseudoscientific. I will update the "scienctific testing" section to clarify this.HeadleyDown 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that NLP is generally scientifically unsupported. The article should definitely show this clearly. Seems fine as it is now.JPLogan 05:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree the research side needs to be redone, I was about to have a stab. BUT, I'm sure you and I will have vastly different takes on this. We need to look at the quality of research, biases (for and against!), and what they're actually saying. Would it be useful to post detail and discussion here? (ps. I won't do stuff on the main page for now, so we don't delete each other's changes etc) GregA 02:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The research has already been done. It shows that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Heap concludes that NLP is scientifically unsupported, as do Druckheim and Swets. Einspruch et al are the only ones to say there was a problem but this was totally wiped out by Sharpley who provides a great chunk more actual research for proof and concludes "certainly research data do no support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures". Platt agrees with this, and all the recent research says the same thing, including some very scathing remarks about NLP being junk, misleading, dangerous, daft etc (Headley just stated some of those refs). Scientifically unsupported is a neutral statement. There is no dispute about that. Scientific linguists, psycholinguists, psychologists, psychotherapists (and some journalists) all conclude that NLP is scientifically unsupported. I will make the minor adjustments (movement not deletion) to the opening in order to reflect the article.DaveRight 03:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also have a review by the British Society of Psychologists that says NLP is theoretically erroneous, ineffective and pseudoscientific. Comaze just reverted this statement. I will place it back in the opening section because it is far more accurate and up to date than the one proposed on the alternative page.AliceDeGrey 04:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientific research on specific NLP processes generally concludes that NLP is scientifically unsupported eg (Heap 1988)(Sharpley 1987)(Lilienfeld et al 2003). This has led to NLP being classed as pseudoscientific (Eisner 2000)(Lilienfeld et al 2003).

My appologies. I accidently reverted your edit. It's back now and I've copyedited your post to follow proper citation standards. best regards, --Comaze 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Dave, Headley just said that Heap, Druckman weren't relevant any more, though I agree they are. THey seem to be some of the highest quality neutral reviews we can get our hands on. I agree that "scientifically unsupported" is a neutral statement. It also makes no judgement on the quality of studies etc, and doesn't preclude future scientific research. I have asked for more SHarpley information, none has returned (yet!?). We should also fairly represent the studies, and try to get some that go outside of PRS.GregA 05:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I don't think anyone is saying they are not relevant. Just that the research should be conclusive (as it is). I have the Sharpley papers. What would you like to know?JPLogan 05:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Critics say NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudo-science that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on a bunch of banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions (Sanghera 2005)
That's a classic line. Straight from a newspaper too. I mean, I thought pop psychology was considered pseudoscience already? So what happens when you bake them together? Or... worse... half-bake them :) More importantly, of course the presuppositions aren't claimed to be original (ie they could be banal), nor are they said to be correct (just useful). Classic :) GregA 05:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a general view (criticism) I think it represents the criticisms very well, using a reference, and it even has an NLP term in it. Psychopablum is also used in similar articles. I will include that at a later date though. It seems that the thing to do now is not get in Voice_of_all's way.JPLogan 05:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I kind of didn't expect someone to support that article. "it even has an NLP term in it"... This makes it good? A term that is misused too? This article is incredibly low standard to include. GregA 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove it unless it receives further corroboration. Though as a newspaper article, its pedigree (Financial Times) is excellent. In fact, I suspect the quality of the article is far above many NLP promotional sourcesHeadleyDown 09:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Headley
Scientifically unsupported is a neutral statement.
I've been thinking about this. Yes it is, absolutely. "Conclude", however, means "to bring something to an end". The Heap and Druckman books both said it was scientifically unsupported but endorsed ongoing research. We should reword to keep neutral. GregA 11:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at a bunch of scientific papers. They will generally have a conclusion section. If there is no conclusion, they will generally not be published. There is generally also a further research section. Of course people would love to get paid to do more research to double check etc:) Getting funding is another matter, especially if the research stream has dried up (as NLP did due to lack of scientific basis in theory, total lack of positive results in testing, and for inability to meet the hype). Basically, NLP is rarely mentioned in psychotherapy books nowadays, because of general dissolusionment and the realisation that "the fad is over".HeadleyDown 11:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course:) I've written a few myself. But these are books you're quoting. And both Heap & Druckman review evidence that shows PRS is not supported, yet conclude the research is inadequate. Neither are NLP researchers either, so it's not their financial incentive there.
Perhaps we should both present a single-screen summary on the science, and present it as 2 POVs on NLP and Science. Not sure :) GregA 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. There is a common view, that NLP is scientifically unsupported: Heap comes to the same conclusion as the other researchers (NLP is not supported). He does not agree with Einspruch et al's conclusion (that the research is faulty). There is due process in experiments and trials of any therapy, starting with pre-clinical experiments and moving on to clinical trials if the pre-clinical experiments show positive results. Heap merely says that NLP did not get to CLINICAL trials. Of course nobody is going to conduct clinical trials on a subject where the theory is pseudoscientific and the hype is over the top, and where the pre-clinical experiments show negative results, so it has been rejected. The pre-clinical experiments showed that it really does not work (empirically unsupported). Not only does it not work to the levels claimed by NLP developers, but it does not even work to normal experimental levels. Basically NLP just didn't make the grade for clinical research. RegardsHeadleyDown 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting Headley. I only know of one full scale clinical outcome-based study.
You're right that Heap says "Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated."
Are you aware of the NLP study in Austria involving 55 clients (plus a control group) which found significant improvements both subjectively and in medical diagnoses after undergoing a full range of NLP techniques? (Genser-Medlitsch and Schütz, 1996)
However, they may not have been using the PRS at all. In fact, it says they used reframing, setting outcomes, parts work, metamodel, metaphor, trance, time line work, anchoring, belief changes, submodality shifts, strategies, and the trauma-phobia process. GregA 06:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you know of any similar studies so we can compare results?


Single studies are really useless unless you want to *10 the size of the article. All the reliable research I found was that NLP is scientifically unsupported. No reliable clinical stuff has ever been done.AliceDeGrey 08:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Reviews of books and psychology/psychotherapy/linguistics papers that talk of scientific testing have said so. Some of the papers and books who are real sticklers for clinical trials said that they never made it that far because the ideas are out of date or erroneous (scientifically) and the empirical studies have shown the basic methods to be wrong (unsupported overall). There is absolutely no way that one single study is going to change the conclusion of book and journal review studies. I think we must have been through this over 20 times (with irrefutable evidence provided).JPLogan 09:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Grouping common themes?

On reading through I noticed a few common themes spread througout the article. I'm wondering if it would be useful to group some of those themes under a heading. For example - "NLP and Theory"

There are also certain things which simply repeat what is in another section. I know sometimes this is necessary, but should we move others to the appropriate section? In particular, I'm thinking in "Goals" section, the last paragraph is entirely criticism (which I'd say wasn't a goal of NLP)... perhaps that should be in the LGAT criticism section, and "extraordinary claims"?.

The line at the end of NLP Presuppositions that Dilts modeled Jesus seems to be perfect for the modeling section. New Age stuff belongs under spirituality.

As I said, sometimes it is necessary as a reminder (eg: under eye accessing cues we should note that PRS studies do not support PRS, see section X). Thoughts? GregA 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the criticism paragraph from the "goals" section as it is redundant.Voice of All 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested opening line

Hi Voice_of_all. I think its fine to exclude the (quasi-spiritual) line, but it was there because it was quite scientific, and had a good description of what NLP is. I suggest a more neutral line: "NLP is a method proposed for programming the mind". This is by far the widest perception of NLP, and it gives a very clear description of what it is. The study of subjective experience is pretty unclear on its own, although it is also used as a technical explanation. I will include it in the article. Feel free to remove it if you feel it is not helpful.JPLogan 05:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "programming" is actually disliked in some NLP trainings, as it's a mechanistic metaphor for the work and implies the brain is like a computer (which was a more common metaphor 30 years ago). The existing "study of the structure of subjective experience" at least comes from multiple sources and is still current enough GregA 05:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think its a great opening line. People need a clear picture of what NLP is. Most people hear about NLP through pop psychology or adverts in newspapers. The general image is of hypnosis and big seminars or small workshops or self help tweaks. I have seen the line written in many NLP sources, and the term NLP includes the word - programming. The word "spiritual" is not included in the line at all. If it were just - study of structure,- and modeling, people are going to have an image of somebody in a library reading a book or making models out of matchsticks:) Really the "programming the mind" line is clear, and as neutral as is appropriate.AliceDeGrey 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

AliceDeGrey, "programming the mind" is a logical type error. Since in NLP we're dealing with logic, it is really not a good idea to start with an error in logic. --Comaze 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You are trying to antagonise again, Comaze. Keep your accusations of illogical error to your self. There is no logical error at all. NLP is programming the mind. Another very clarifying comparison would be to say it is similar to Dianetics. I suggest that will clarify the article a great deal.AliceDeGrey 08:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot see any problems at all with answering everyone's question (is it about programming the mind?) by clarifying up front what it is about. The "study of structure of subjective..." is really quite aggrandizing, as is "epistemology". I think we can keep it reasonable and neutral. "Proposed method of programing the mind" is probably more accurate and neutral than the other fanciful definitions in the opening section.HeadleyDown 10:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with "NLP is a method proposed for programming the mind". It is short and concise. It therefore makes a good opening sentence.Voice of All 11:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

terminology: tenet or pattern?

Should we use the term tenet or pattern? I have done a search of my NLP books and have not found any major references to tenet, pattern seems to be more general and more widely used... google

  • "neuro-linguistic programming"+tenet: 633
  • "neuro-linguistic programming"+pattern:58,800

--Comaze 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, the ref on the article uses the word Tenet. The articles that test NLP refer to tenets, NLP books refer to tenets. Google will refer to "the difference that makes the difference" "the best thing since sliced bread" and "the future of psychotechnology, and human potential". I suggest we stick to being reasonable and stop looking for excuses to make arbitrary changes according to your NLP-promotional agendaAliceDeGrey 08:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup! Tenet is the right word according to the research.HeadleyDown 10:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley.. You just added a Dilts reference to the tenets section. Is that for the whole thing, or just verbal predicates? Thanks GregA 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. From my notes, it is the whole thing, including the body lang, eye accessing, verbals etc.HeadleyDown 11:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Headley. Does dilts call them Tenets too? GregA

Sure, Greg. He uses the word tenet.HeadleyDown 02:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone said (Headley?) that calling it "early patterns" implied they weren't in use any more, etc... almost "historical patterns". I tend to agree with this. I also don't like the word tenet, given that the patterns aren't beliefs or principles. I also haven't heard NLP call them tenets, certainly not in core books. Has anyone got a "3rd option"!? :) GregA 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking that, as presented, they look awfully like a summary of the observables used for information gathering and modeling. Not sure how that all fits together... but just a thought. GregA 13:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
hehe... I'm going to remove the wiki internal link to "tenet". Follow the link if you have any qualms about it :) GregA 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone give me a definition of tenet as we are using it here? --Comaze 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please check my version

Can someone please check this version and reword (if necessary) for NPOV. I think it is much simpler than what was there while keeping the existing content. , best regards, --Comaze 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Forget it Comaze. You removed facts (5 elements, some body language facts, etc) and the present section on the article is quite clear enough already. Its no good trying to make changes like that just after you have annoyed people up with excessive reversions. I added the Dilts ref and as it stands, the text corresponds well with both refs.HeadleyDown 11:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown and other editors, I didn't remove any facts in this submission, only made what was there more concise while keeping the important information. Please read it again with fresh eyes: . I'll see if I can edit it to make it more concise. best regards, --Comaze 13:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with the revert by Alice. That version is definetely clearer and more complete.Voice of All 13:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Comaze, Headley, ViewOfAll :)
As you know I'm still looking at the whole Tenet idea and how it fits with modeling (since these are the 'observable' cues that can be used during modeling and information gathering).
Comaze, I like the simplicity of the rep system opening paragraph as it puts it into context. However it's not all there yet... not sure why I think that. Headley, you say it deletes stuff - it may not SAY "5 elements" but it lists the 5 elements. I like that Comaze's version flows and connects eye access cues to the verbal predicates easily, and removes a big paragraph in favour of some simple text. Still.... something missing. Can anyone find a way of putting
  1. these 5 observable elements into context for modeling/information gathering
  2. flowing the 5 elements into the rest of the text...
If we can do it, I think it'll improve it.... GregA 22:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

Extraordinary claims

Hello all. I'm looking at the criticisms section. I know there are some extraordinary claims and I'd like to refer to some directly, rather than via another source. The Griffin source is a book on Anthony Robbins, the Leikind book is on firewalking, and refers to Anthony Robbins. Anyone got some non Robbins sources, preferably 1st hand? GregA

Those 2 books are from 85 & 91 respectively too. I did a quick search of NLP Training to find some extraordinary claims. These are the claims currently made (I only went to these sites, and quoted what they said:) GregA 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to improve your life? Get more of what you really want? Maybe you'd like to lose weight, become powerfully confident, more motivated, happier, a more skilled communicator, understand how your mind works, or just change a habit?

http://www.paulmckenna.com/

  • Mastering universally effective techniques for changing limiting beliefs and elimiting unwanted behaviors
  • Generating a full spectrum of choices when responding to difficult situations and uncooperative people
  • Learning tools for transforming the quality of your communication
  • Being in charge of your own emotions
  • Healing old wounds so you can bring your awareness back to the present moment
  • Creating a compelling future
  • Developing a greater sense of well-being, inner peace and self-worth

http://www.nlptraining.com/index.asp?fuseaction=showcourse&courseID=118

  • do whatever you already do reasonably well, even better
  • acquire skills and attitudes to do what you cannot do right now, but would like to be able to do
  • communicate more effectively with others
  • think more clearly
  • manage your thoughts, moods and behaviours more effectively.

http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/nlp-what.htm

Enhance these competencies of emotional intelligence:

  • knowing yourself and what your emotions are telling you
  • being able to manage and control your own emotional state
  • using your deepest preferences to move you towards your goals
  • recognising and reading emotions in others
  • relationships, persuasion, dealing with 'difficult' people, negotiation, teamwork, coaching

http://www.practicaleq.com/practitioner.html

  • Master your emotional levels to support high performance, optimise stress levels
  • Reframe events and increase your options, create empowering beliefs that work
  • Drop unwanted habits when you choose to
  • Improve your memory
  • See, hear and feel from many perspectives to support high performance
  • Identify resources to achieve goals smoothly
  • Interact effectively in multiple contexts, create rapport with others
  • Communicate compellingly to different people
  • Acquire precise and elegant language to enable high quality results
  • Think globally and specifically; solve problems more effectively
  • Mediate change in your self and others for more options, negotiate win-win solutions at work and elsewhere

http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp-gc.htm

  • create and maintain genuine rapport
  • set achievable and value-driven personal and professional goals
  • explore constructively problems and difficulties within a goal
  • understand and communicate compellingly to different thinking styles
  • enrich your understanding of a situation by experiencing it form different perspectives
  • gather high quality information for business or coaching purposes
  • create and manage your emotional state for high performance
  • positively influence others and support their ability to experience more choices
  • reframe and reorganise perceptions to direct attention more creatively
  • use physical and mental alignment to become more congruent and confident

http://www.ppdlearning.co.uk/training/programmes/nlp-practitioner/part1.php

get rid of negative emotions and eliminate limiting decisions

http://www.nlp.com/

Neuro-Linguistic Programming™ was specifically created in order to allow us to do magic by creating new ways of understanding how verbal and non-verbal communication affect the human brain. As such it presents us all with the opportunity to not only communicate better with others, but also learn how to gain more control over what we considered to be automatic functions of our own neurology.

http://www.neurolinguisticprogramming.com/

get skills that tremendously improve the quality of your life -- abundant prosperity, wonderful relationships, vital health, unbelievable happiness

http://www.idea-seminars.com/about/index.htm

How do we represent neutrally the extremes of the currently quoted Robbins with what's on the sites? GregA 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Well, research (such as Platt) talks of extraordinary claims. Most other critical articles also do. So all that is requrired is to supply some examples of those extraordinary claims. There seems to be extraordinary claims in each book, including those of Bandler and Grinder. I think they have been quite well represented so far.HeadleyDown 02:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

General change to criticism section

Hi Greg. A lot of your statements were argumentative or simply arguable. DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought that what was there before was argumentative or arguable. That's what I was trying to fix. Please note that I'm not trying to say "the other was wrong, mine is right" - I'm trying to make a change (which will also be POV) and let others make more changes...narrow it down some. GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How about we take this a step at a time. Vast changes take a lot of time to work on and unless we are all unemployed or something, we are not going to have time or energy to cope with it all. I don't think we should include discussion on the article (this belongs in other sections etc) because it is just irritating. DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it does take a lot of time when there are big changes. That's why I actually explicitly wrote what I'd changed - so you could quickly and easily cut-n-paste ANYTHING you thought still belonged. I agree including discussion in the article is irritating, but I was trying to make it easy to comment and improve for everyone, yourself included. GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I have now re-entered deletions, including the repetitions, and the one I didn't agree with...
  • "Ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands" (Beyerstein 1997).".
I find this more likely to apply to medicine than therapy. Certainly this ethical principle is not contained in counselling and psychotherapy, or coaching ethical guidelines I have ever read.GregA 05:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah.. in the new age section the modeling of Tesla etc is removed though the modeling of Jesus is kept. Is that okay? GregA 05:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have read, this article uses extremely well researched statements, so I don't think you should move stuff or delete it just because you didn't find it yourself. Some statements do actually belong in two sections because they are relevant there. Some redundancy is ok as long as it is useful or clarifying. DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care who found a statement. IIRC I only removed one refered statement (and again, made it obvious so it could be re-added). Redundancy can be useful if it's clarifying, though multiple repetition is not. GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay so it's re-added.
Now, to another point - the article has some well researched statements but we have in no way agreed on the scientific section yet. Perhaps this part of the conversation can wait until that much thornier issue is discussed in depth.

And what about - "Other criticisms" section? Some statements about NLP are neutral, such as the scientific findings. Just because they sound like criticisms to you does not mean that they are. Pseudoscientific is also not a criticism, so much as a neutral statement of fact. I think we are going to have to be a lot more reasonable and a lot less "NLP reframe/spin" about things, if steady progress is to be continued.DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think we were repeating criticisms that were discussed elsewhere. Pseudoscientific is not a statement of fact - PRS research is unproven is a statement of fact.
I really had hoped to clean up the criticisms and make them clear. Sometimes I have time to throw at it, sometimes I don't, and I made an effort to list everything I did so that people who don't have time to follow it all could read those comments and act easily and quickly where they didn't agree. It's a pity you didn't. GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Have renamed it "criticism" again.
You know that a reframe is used when there are 2 or more interpretations of the facts. The trick with reframing is to help someone work out what the facts are and either leave it at that (for them to think about) or present an alternative interpretation. In either case, the facts remain.
BTW: Pseudoscience is an interpretation of facts. Lets leave that in the science section. GregA 05:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The lists of who does what are very arguable. Bandler now teaches dhe, right, but he promotes NLP and writes books about it. Same with Tony Robbins. I think people understand that NLP is broad and mixed according to the present article, there is no need to make people crosseyed with acronyms. You seem to want to turn criticisms into excuses. DaveRight 04:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach the inconsistencies. The previous page listed "inconsistency" as one of the criticisms, but had no information at all. I AGREE that inconsistency is a criticism. I am happy to discuss it in a different way (eg remove all the DHE/NAC stuff). I think it's worth criticising, perhaps describing somewhere else, the wide range of trainer quality or practitioner standards etc. I'm surprised you don't want to discuss it.GregA 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the inconsistencies, made it heaps shorter, but 211.x.x.x had edited just before me. Shorter version below: GregA 05:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency (shorter version)

In the 1980s Bandler attempted to control the term NLP - perhaps to guide the development of the field, or perhaps to make money through royalties. Grinder and other early developers fought him and the term NLP (and Neuro-linguistic Programming) was deemed to be generic.

The term NLP is used inconsistently, and some practitioners tie the term NLP to their other fields of interest. There is no central quality control, so anyone can potentially say they are an NLP practitioner or trainer - most trainers list their background and training as part of their credentials (the quality of training varies). Some NLP practitioners register themselves under psychotherapy or coaching which has greater quality control. The length of so called NLP Practitioner training varies from 7 days to 24 days.

These inconsistencies make it difficult to discern the quality of an NLP training or NLP practitioner. In addition, ""many of the NLP materials are proprietary (and) they are not available in the scientific literature or on the open market (Druckman & Swets, 1988, pg 144 ). Without access to this information, it is hard for customers to assess what a course teaches (and hard for scientific review).

I don't think we need an inconsistencies section at all. Any neutral fact that is there could be placed in the buzzwords sectionAliceDeGrey 08:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, puting perhapses in really makes things unclear. Quality control is not the issue, or centralization. The problem is more about lack of regulation. This is not really an inconsistency issue. Inconsistency does not make it difficult to assess, rather spurious claims and misleading pseudoscience makes it difficult for non-scientific consumers to determine whether it is science or not. It certainly doesn't make scientific review difficult. There have been quite enough reviews, and they say NLP is unsupportable. So on reflection, the section is not needed at all.JPLogan 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Provocative therapy...

  • "Richard Bandler and Frank Farrelly promote within NLP "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s (Thaler Singer 1995)."

Should this statement read provocative (rather than attack?) therapy? --Comaze 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


To do

I brevified the list of to dos at the top of this page because we have easily handled those tasks already. NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop. NLP has been defined for the article and we are writing about that. We really don't need to be re-organizing the sections all the time. The merging finished ages ago, and stuff was integrated from the alternative page even before the NLPpromoters started adding extra. I certainly saw no need to merge any more info or hype over two weeks ago. All you really need to do is accept the facts and get on with NPOV.JPLogan 09:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: