Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 16 December 2008 (→NLP3: query). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Neuro-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 Date Process Result January 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 5, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article candidate

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Skepticism B‑class

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Alternative medicine B‑class

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Pre-Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Disputes Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 1 Oct 2005 (Mediated) Disputes 2 Nov 3 - 13, 2005 (Mediated) Nov 13 - 25, 2005 (Mediated ) 2005 Nov 25 - Dec 22, 2005 (Mediated) 2005 Dec 22, 2005 - Jan 14, 2006 (Mediated) 2006 Jan 14, 2006 To ArbCom decision Feb 6 2006 Mentorship begins Mentorship ends, HeadleyDown and many socks blocked The Swish discussion (March 6 – March 9, 2006) General Workshop discussion (Feb 12 – May 10, 2006) June 6 2006 to December 31 2006 Long-term abuser trolling/disinformation discussion (December 17 2006 to Present) Late December to January 19 2007 January 22 2007 to May 2008

My Recent changes

I too need to apologize for going directly for some changes in the introduction. From my perspective it was too slanted towards applications of NLP whereas I have heard both originators state that modeling is the core and that although there seems to be an abundance of applications (admittedly many of debatable quality), relatively few improvements have been made to the core modeling. If I can find some time I will do a more thorough review and provide further references. Panterom (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I made lots of changes without consultation. I just felt the intro was very turgid and too busy. I know very little about the subjects, but I just wanted page to be more understandable to people like me. I was bold in my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.229.54 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its great to get some fresh eyes on the page. Can you please take a look at it again. Its a difficult subject to introduce because there are so many competing views. I hope it is clearer now. ----Action potential 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"NLP has often been promoted as an art and science of effective communication and 'the study of the structure of subjective experience'. Others have tended to define NLP as a methodology for effective communication or modeling excellence as it was originally created." -- to me those two sentences mean the same thing. It's like saying "some say milk comes from cows, others say that milk comes from female bovines." How about saying that NLP is modeling human excellence by studying the structure of the subjective experience of people who perform excellently. I would add that the tools and techniques of NLP are not itself NLP, but they were discovered as the result of doing NLP modeling on excellent communicators, therapists, etc. If you're not familiar with a subject, why are you editing it? Trying to understand something in terms of what you already know = not learning anything new about what it really is. It's like telling people that the internet is a series of tubes because the lay person might understand better - but in fact the internet is not a series of tubes. --Sublime01 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You bring up an important point - the difference between NLP modeling and the results of the modeling process - the various applications of NLP. That certainly could be clearer. I was trying to keep close to the published sources. ----Action potential 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The term NLP is often used interchangeably to mean both the modeling methodology and the techniques that have been modeled, which makes it confusing. I think the whole article could benefit by making this point very clear in the intro paragraph.--Sublime01 (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a video of John Grinder, co-creator of NLP giving a definition in which near the end he states the difference between the core NLP process (modeling) and the product of that modeling (application). Can a youtube video be used as a citation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzO5x6ko6w&feature=related--Sublime01 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP and linguistics

should we add back the quotes psycholinguist Willem Levelt (1996) states "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises."... "NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming". Cognitive neuroscience researcher Michael C Corballis (1999) agrees and says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability." ? as the article stands now, i don't think it's very clear that NLP is not really linguistics, and i think some quotes such as the aforementioned would serve to show this. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If citations stand up they should go back in, suggest you reinstate. --Snowded TALK 11:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the original source for the Levelt quote is still in the actual article, but with the quote removed and summarized rather poorly. Currently it states "Psycholinguist Willem Levelt (in the Dutch skeptical magazine Skepter) acknowledges that the main point of NLP was pragmatic, but doubts the basis in neurology, linguistics and computer programming implied." As it's written now, it doesn't appear to read like it was written by a native English speaker, nor does it really do Levelt's criticism justice. The original Levelt quote appears to come from: "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science". ALLEA Annual Report http://www.allea.org/pdf/59.pdf (page 59), so that is how it should be cited in the article. As for the Corballis quote, I'll have to track down the source for that Theserialcomma (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the cited quote is itself an inaccurate assessment of NLP. It was co-created by a university linguistics professor, and the Meta-Model of NLP (a tool used in modeling) is very heavily based in linguistics. Again its a confusion between the NLP modeling process, and the techniques that have been modeled. Many of the techniques that have been modeled are not based in linguistics, they're based on how excellent achievers behave. The term NLP is often used incorrectly to mean the techniques that have been modeled. I assume this is what Willem Levelt is referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the Misplaced Pages, the citation says what it says it can not be interpreted in the way you suggest. It makes a statement about the claims of NLP and as such is notable. --Snowded TALK 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Include it in the criticism section.--Sublime01 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, the intention of an article is to inform, tucking away all criticism to the end creates a misleading impression. The claims for origin in NLP are central to its popular proposition and cannot be left unchallenged in the main text. --Snowded TALK 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Intention of an article is to inform about what the subject of the article is, not to inform about what someone else's 3rd party assessment of what the subject is or is not. People coming to read this article want to learn about what NLP is and its very confusing to read when criticisms are used as the basis of the article (NLP practitioners say NLP is this, but the scientific community disagrees and says NLP is that). Very confusing to the reader. Historically much of the subtext of this article has been "is NLP valid or is it nonsense?" without ever getting to understand first what is NLP? You can briefly state the controversy upfront in the intro, but keep the criticisms to their own section, please.--Sublime01 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

and given that NLP makes substantial claims as to its scientific basis, the status of those claims is a part of learning what NLP is. --Snowded TALK 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sort of agreeing with Sublime that the introduction should say what the subject really really is. Starting with what its founders claimed or thought it was, I'm struggling a bit with that. I think Structure of Magic was the first book in 1975. What does the book say NLP is? What claims did they make for it? Did they present NLP as a theory about the human mind, human behaviour or what? I'm reluctant to buy a copy of the book, for obvious reasons, but perhaps someone here knows? Peter Damian (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are planning some drastic changes Peter happy to wait and see what turns out. Just provided we don't have an implication of a scientific basis which is not backed up by reputable citations, and that an criticism is not stuck away in some corner. --Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work on the article so far, Peter Damian! I have a copy of Structure of Magic. It doesnt mention neurolinguistic programming anywhere in the book, as the term had not yet been invented. Here are some direct quotes from the book to help answer your question: "This book is designed to give you an explicit set of tools which will help you to become a more effective therapist." "Our desire in this book is not to question the magical quality of our experience of these therapeutic wizards, but rather to show that this magic which they perform - like other complex human activities such as painting, composing music, or placing a man on the moon - has structure and is, therefore, learnable, given the appropriate resources. Neither is it our intention to claim that reading a book can insure that you will have these dynamic qualities. We especially do not wish to make the claim that we have discovered the "right" or most powerful approach to psychotherapy. We desire only to present you with a specific set of tools that seem to us to be implicit in the actions of these therapists, so that you may begin or continue the never-ending process to improve, enrich, and enlarge the skills you offer as a people helper. Since this set of tools is not based upon some pre-existing psychological theory or therapeutic approach, we would like to present the simple overview of the human processes out of which we have created these tools. We call this process 'modeling'." The majority of the book goes on to include transcripts of therapy sessions in Q&A format, with linguistic analyses of each response in the margins. The analyses are based on Chomskian Transformational Grammar, which is no longer held to be valid. Many of the tools presented in this book are no longer practiced, in the manner presented, by NLP practitioners as they are no longer held to be valid, however many of the core concepts and goals presented in this book still form the basis of NLP today.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Knol article on NLP

There is an article new to the Knol which to my mind is well-referenced and, er, more objective than this one. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a Knol is that it is only subject to review by people the author determines qualified, and has the majority voting determination of value. Give me wikipedia anytime. Not to say that cited material in a Knol cannot be used however. --Snowded TALK 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting to see how the Knol concept turns out. If you Knol (verb corresponding to 'Google') NLP, you get a lot of clearly biased material. I dislike how there can be many articles corresponding to the same subject, with no obvious mechanism for determining authenticity or value or whatever. On balance, the idea of having just one article as here, and with fixed links like in a real encyclopedia, is preferable. So, tentative agreement with you, for the moment. Peter Damian (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear commercial motive re search results here by the way, and some evidence of Google not playing 100% by the book on what comes first ...--Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Adopting the approach which was reasonably successful in developing a neat and concise introduction to the Philosophy article.

An introduction should summarise the three or four most important things we would say about the subject. What are these, in the case of NLP?

• The article should say when and with whom it began (in the 70's with Bandler and Grindler)
• It should say what it began as. My understanding of it (not having read Structure of Magic (1975) or Frogs into Princes, 1979) is that it is primarily a way of improving a person's skills by copying ('modelling') the behaviour of another person who has that skill. Are there any other key ideas that are fundamental to NLP?
• The article should cover the subsequent development of NLP (which, the sources suggest, is principally not as an academic movement or discipline, but as a sort of brand or accreditation - interestingly there is very little in the article about the NLP industry itself. How many practitioners are there? What is the estimated dollar value of the brand - that sort of thing)
• It should mention the dispute about whether NLP is a pseudoscience or not. It should avoid if possible the approach of other pseudoscience articles which is to veer between polarised viewpoints, without any discernible thread. It should mention the fact that many scientists view it as pseudoscience (with representative sources, which we have) in a dispassionate way, and leave it at that.

As for the rest of the article, the order of sections should follow the order of ideas presented in the introduction (which the current article largely does, although the style could do with considerable polishing). How does that sound? Peter Damian (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in to see how the Philosophy introduction looks, and miraculously it has survived in almost exactly the agreed form. Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We all made it work there (Philosophy) and I like the above --Snowded TALK 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've made a start on the body of the article next door - hope not too controversial. I've merged a lot of duplicated material, trying not to remove anything that is not clearly superfluous. I have removed some blatantly promotional or unsourced stuff, but tried by and large not to do anything too controversial. I've also used the method of stating facts in a way that will allow either conclusion, rather than blatantly say something is pseudoscience (e.g. I just say at the end of the history section that NLP is a lucrative industry and leave the reader to make up their own mind). Looking at the separate article on NLP history there is a huge amount of overlap. I suggest this be deleted, but this should be left for the workshop that FT2 is organising, as it may be contentious. Best Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses section

This section states "In contrast to mainstream psychotherapy, NLP does not concentrate on diagnosis, treatment and assessment of mental and behavioral disorders. Instead, it focuses on helping clients to overcome their own self-perceived, or subjective, problems." Do these two sentences not contradict one another?

That is to say that mainstream psychotherapy often represents the psychopathology model of therapy, whereas NLP represents a more holistic or humanistic model of therapy. (granted some try to use NLP techniques in a less than humanistic/holistic manner).--Sublime01 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP also has some similarities with Positive psychology in that it does not focus on psychopathology (like psychology) but what positive practical things people can do to enrich their lives, relationships and communication with others. on setting alternative positive outcomes that satisfy the positive intention of any unwanted behaviors/symptoms. ----Action potential 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is a 'holistic' or 'humanistic' model please? Peter Damian (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CBT and the more behavioral approaches to psychotherapy could be criticized as a cookbook approach to change. That is, CBT beleivs there is a best practice if someone presents with some pathology. NLP is similar to humanistic or holistic approaches in that it treats each person as an individual. The practitioner of NLP makes no assumption by what is meant when someone presents with "depression", "anxiety" or "depression". Rather, the practitioner is interested in how the individual organises their own states, breathing, physiology and mental strategies and what the individual wants instead. If the person has limiting beliefs then the practitioner might use reframing to challenge them to help them establish some positive and generative outcomes. This is probably why NLP has been difficult to test in the traditional counseling framework. It does accept into the psychopathological model typical of psychology (e.g. depression/anxiety/psychosis...). I'm exaggerating a little to make a point but that is the gist and highlights the different between traditional counseling and NLP. ----Action potential 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you - I shall probably have further questions. Please note there is a workshop being organised by FT2 to address the more 'difficult' issues presented by dealing with the NLP-related articles. I imagine all entitled to 'attend'. Meanwhile any further information welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'popular culture' section says that genuine NLP rejects the more spectacular and overstated claims of NLP. Is that true? Paul Mckenna's site says "I'd personally like to welcome you to my online store: Do you want to lose weight? Do you want to become rich? Do you want to become more confident? Do you want to improve your life?" This may possibly be an example of pseudo-NLP masquerading as real NLP, but then there is an endorsement on the same site by Bandler: "There is a difference between learning about NLP and learning to do NLP. When I got together with Paul McKenna back in 1994, I decided that one of the most important benefits that we could bring to people who are interested to teach them how to do NLP as I originally intended it to be used - to create more love and freedom for every human being on the planet". (Richard Bandler). The history of NLP suggests that the founders were involved in it as a profitable business from the very beginning. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the overstated claims are more along the lines of learn to have psychic abilities, create hypnotic slaves to do your bidding, breast and penis enlargement, recover memories from past lives, etc. Or perhaps the claims have to do with how quickly it can be achieved, or that it can be done without any effort. I would certainly not think that getting rich, becoming confident and improving your life in general are overstated claims.--Sublime01 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So learning and using NLP will allow me to get rich? Can you tell me more about how I can do this, please? Peter Damian (talk)

Is it relevant to the article? For your indulgence, I suppose by using the tools of NLP to model the skills, behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, etc. of someone who already is able to get rich consistently and then applying it, testing for feedback along the way, eliminate all the non-necessary variables, teach it to others and make sure they can do it too. Now you have a successful model. I believe some rich people have already been modeled (McKenna modeled Richard Branson).--Sublime01 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to the article what claims NLP makes. The main premise of NLP seems to be that by copying the outward actions of skilled people, you can effectively transfer the skills of that person to yourself. For example, the great and successful philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who had apparently very distinctive personality traits and behaviour. If we had access (by film, pictures, recording, descriptions of how he acted), we could in effect become philosophers as great as Wittgenstein (or approaching his greatness). Is that the fundamental assumption behind NLP? Peter Damian (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, suppose Wittgenstein was still alive, What specifically would you like to model from Wittgenstein? Wittgenstein would be extremely complex person to model and you'd need to break it down into manageable chunks. Is there something in particular you'd like to model? This is the first stage of the modeling process, defining an outcome and evidence. That is, what you want to acquire and what would be your evidence for having acquired it? The best exposure to the model is via direct experience. That is, hang out with Wittgenstein for a few months so you can get enough exposure to him engaging in the behavior you want to acquire. High quality film would be second best, followed by high quality audio followed by text written by him. The second stage involves actually going out and practicing. If you don't reach criteria in a certain time you might need to get more exposure to the model. You might have to redefine your outcome. Where NLP modeling differs from typical western ideas of learning is that it first involves the unconscious uptake stage for several months or until you can replicate the original target skill. The test is that you can do what the original model can do in around the same time and get similar responses from people as the original model. Unconscious uptake is analogous to how baby acquires a language as argued by Chomsky -- with no conscious effort. ----Action potential 10:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to 'model' (if that is the right word) Wittgenstein's genius: the qualities that made him one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century. I would like to write a book like Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - this example is particularly relevant because Wittgenstein's behaviour and mannerisms were the most imitated of any philosophers. When I entered university in the 1970's there were still philosophers around who would mimic W's gestures, mannerisms, style of speech and so on. This began in the years before W's death in the 1950's, and he himself complained about this, feeling he had spawned a school of imitators who had captured the 'form' of his work, but not the content or substance. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Action Potential, but copying the outward actions is only the tip of the iceberg. NLP really is geared towards modeling the mental strategies, beliefs, and attitudes, maybe even the person's sense of identity and self-concept. For example, Walt Disney has a strategy called Dreamer, Realist, Critic where he steps into the Dreamer role and thinks up every crazy idea imaginable, then he steps into the Realist role and decides whats technically feasible to do, then he steps into the Critic role and decides what he likes and dislikes. This is a mental strategy, and it would not be discernible by outward behavior alone. Usually people are unconscious/unaware of the mental strategies they use, so the only way to get at them is by asking very detailed and specific questions about how they think in different situations including if they think in pictures, sounds, feelings, or what sequence of thoughts they put together to form their inner strategies. Another example, Einstein imagined himself riding on a photon of light and wondered what would happen if he shined a flashlight forward where would the light go? That's how he came up with the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, if Wittgenstein hadn't elucidated about how he thought in his writing, you may never get to build an accurate model of his creative processes.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But if you had developed your sensory acuity in all of senses and pattern detection skills then you might be able to get information about Wittgenstein's state shifts and internal process. ----Action potential 08:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you by the way for the notes on Structure of Magic you provided above, I only just noticed. There is a concern here about what NLP actually is. I am very keen (if you follow my previous discussions on other articles) that there is a description or definition or characterisation of the subject in the introduction, and that the rest of the article adheres rigidly to this definition. If you are saying (as above) that many of the methods or tools in NLP are no longer used, or no longer characterise NLP, then the article should reflect this. Which of the methods described in the article are obsolete, in your view? Peter Damian (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the methods described in this article are obsolete(not sure). NLP still uses insights gained from the socratic style questioning of the meta-model, but its no longer used in the way it was presented in Structure of Magic because the questioning tended to just go on endless loop without ever getting anywhere. However, the general idea of using socratic questioning to gain specificity about a problem, challenge cognitive distortions, and set specific outcomes is still used and is still called the 'Meta-Model'. Point is, it's been updated since its presentation in Structure of Magic.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This might get difficult. Six step reframing, for example, is considered the breakthrough pattern in new code NLP. Whereas submodalities and swish appears to be the focus of Bandler's school. But its never clear cut. To avoid problems I think we could just cover the methods and techniques that are in the academic publications (indexed or cited in psycinfo or pubmed) and perhaps the books of the co-founders. There are too many variations if we go any further than that. Sublime01 might have other views. ----Action potential 10:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a definitive list of academic publications that reference and give clear descriptions of what NLP is, please. Peter Damian (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the closest I've found to a definitive list of academic articles on NLP. There is also a vendor-neutral introduction to NLP which would be valuable in defining NLP in a neutral way. ----Action potential 13:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at these and immediately you have the problem I have encountered elsewhere, of making a judgment about the reliability of the journals. Misplaced Pages does not give any hard and fast rules about which journals can be regarded as authoritative, and which not. There are some I would regard with suspicion, as being somewhat lower down the 'food chain' of academic research, eg Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Emergency Librarian, Foresight - the journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy. Also Journal of Counseling psychology is referenced 12 times, and there are 9 references to management science journals (which I tend to regard with suspicion also). I'll refer this problem elsewhere, if that's OK. Also, I recognise a couple of studies (e.g. Sharpley's and Heap's) which are downright hostile to NLP. Do you have a sense of which studies in your list are 'pro' and which are not? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My uni library has some online tools that lets you analyse relevance and importance of articles and journals. The number of citations and references is one factor it uses. Google scholar has something similar. You can put "NLP" into Google scholar and it was return the most cited books / articles it has indexed. This helps discard some of the less important papers. Most people would not bother citing a junk paper. Otherwise, literature reviews are useful in deciding what is acceptable or not. Say if book or paper is published by a less important journal but it the article is cited in a reputable journal then it may be acceptable to cite in this article. According to Google Scholar "Frogs into princes" has the most citations in academic works of any NLP book. This helps us confirm that Frogs is an important book in NLP. The same logic could be applied to articles and journals. ----Action potential 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tosey & Mathison paper referenced gives a useful review of the academic work to date. I will try and incorporate it into the 'uses' and 'criticism' section. Peter Damian (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Transformational grammar

Comaze, you have changed the sentence about Grinder's ideas on transformational grammar being 'superseded' to one that now looks somewhat disconnected, and doesn't use the word 'supersede'. Why did you do this? There was an important idea being communicated by the use of 'supersede'. Could you explain why, please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think saying TG was "incorporated" into the Chomsky's later theories of syntax is less-POV. Saying TG was "superseded" seems to undermine its importance. Superseded seems to imply that it was abandoned, rather than revised. Its a subtle variation which I'm not too concerned about. ----Action potential 08:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I am doing some research on this and will get back. Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question made it sound like TG was no longer relevant. While TG has been renamed and updated, perhaps superseded, in Chomsky's more recent generative grammars, it is still considered relevant to linguistics (and NLP). At the time when NLP was founded, linguistics was split. On one side you had the generativists and the other side you had the semanticists. In the same way that TG / generative grammar freed the linguists from dealing in content, the meta model frees the practitioner so that he/she can respond to the syntax/form of the speaker's utterances rather than getting overloaded in the content. Look forward to hearing what you find in your research. I made a change to correct this. I put superseded back in. ----Action potential 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Bandler and Grinder studies, a close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions. The research method was presented as a formal notational system in The Structure of Magic II: A Book about Communication & Change (Grinder & Bandler, 1976, pp. 164-193), but was never fully realized as a distinct research approach, partly due to Bandler's and Grinder's emphasis on their therapy model.

I have done some reading around the subject (I last studied linguistics in 1986). Textbooks of TG published before 1980 present what is essentially the Chomsky's Standard Theory. Presumably Grinder's ideas are based on this? In the 1970's it was demonstrated that standard TG was so enormously powerful that it could, in principle, describe anything which could be described at all - potentially catastrophic, since the whole point of a theory of grammar is to tell us what is possible in languages and what is not possible.

Chomsky responded to all this in the early 1970s by introducing a number of changes to his framework known as the Extended Standard Theory, later revised to the Revised Extended Standard Theory, or REST. In 1981 Chomsky published Lectures on Government and Binding which swept away much of the apparatus of the earlier transformational theories in favour of a dramatically different approach (Government-and Binding Theory). Because of this discontinuity the name 'transformational grammar' is not usually applied to the later successors of TG.

Thus, is it fair to say that the linguistic work that NLP was based on has largely been superseded?

Also, what actually is the connection between NLP and TG, and in which of the early NLP works is this laid out? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is laid out in Structure of Magic. Here's an excerpt for clarity:

"To say that our communication, our language, is a system is to say that it has a structure, that there is some set of rules which identify which sequences of words will make sense, will represent a model of our experience. In other words, our behavior when creating a representation or when communicating is rule-governed behavior. Even though we are not normally aware of the structure in the process of representation and communication, that structure, the structure of language, can be understood in terms of regular patterns.

Fortunately, there is a group of academicians who have made the discovery and explicit statement of these patterns the subject of their discipline - transformational grammar. In fact, transformational grammarians have developed the most complete and sophisticated explicit model of human, rule-governed behavior. The notion of human, rule-governed behavior is the key to understanding the way in which we as humans use our language."

......

"The linguist's objective is to develop a grammar - a set of rules - which states what the well-formed patterns for any particular language are. This discipline is based on the brilliant work of Noam Chomsky who initially developed a methodology and set of formal models for natural language. *footnote(We provide an appendix, which presents the transformational model more thoroughly, and a selective, annotated bibliography for those who wish to further examine the transformational model of language.) As a result of the work of Chomsky and other transformationalists, it has been possible to develop a formal model for describing the regular patterns in the way we communicate our model of our experience. We use language to represent and communicate our experience - language is a model of our world. What transformational grammarians have done is to develop a formal model of our language, a model of our model of our world, or, simply, a Meta-model."

I would be interested to know exactly why and how TG has been superseded and what if any specific impact that has on NLP and the Meta-model.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert but I did take some linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence classes last session. I'm also taking cognition/perception and psychological research methods this session. It seems that majority of what NLP imported from transformational is still taught in linguistics today - mainly syntax. My uni's linguistics department is very much in line with Chomsky. Few linguists will openly acknowledge that NLP is the most commercially successful enterprise to come from transformational-generative grammar (or perhaps linguistics in general). Deep structure/surface structure is still an important distinction and it has parallels with elements of Chomsky's performance/linguistic competence distinction which is part of the minimalist program. Interestingly, Chomsky is now encouraging convergence of linguistics, brain science and biology. There are some other minor differences. The main texts about transformational grammar cited by Grinder & Bandler in 1975 follow (from selected bibliography.

• Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic structures
• Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects and the theory of syntax
• Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and mind
• Langacker, R. Language and its structure
• Grinder & Elgin (1972) A Guide to Transformational Grammar

Syntactic structures is probably the most important of those texts but it is a very dense book. Bandler and Grinder note that Chomsky's "Language and mind" is much simpler to read ----Action potential 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deep strucutures

It may or may be worth noting, but Chomsky's ideas of deep structures has been disproved in Neuro-science by the work of Deacon (The Symbolic Species) and others. Its simply not how the human brain works (although it can explain some aspects~). This is an additional science based challenge to anything (like NLP) being dependent on it. I can also imagine that any academic linguist would resist acknowledging NLP as while it may be commercially successful it is popular in all the worst sense of that word. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What I am struggling with is how anything in NLP is connected with anything in Chomsky's work at all, on the basis of the quotations given. Peter Damian (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, Deacon's symbol system argument against the importance of universal grammar disputed by linguists. For Chomsky's interdisciplinary framework see:. Chomsky encourages an interdisciplinary approach to study of the mind and language. In relation to NLP, there's a whole chapter in Grinder/Bostic (2005) "Whispering in the Wind" on the influence of Chomsky's generative grammar within NLP from Grinder's perspective. ----Action potential 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, practically the connection between TG and NLP is via the meta-model. It is laid out quite specifically in "Structure of Magic" ----Action potential 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Still working on it - need another day. ----Action potential 06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On the connection of NLP with Chomsky

Thanks for the quotes AP but they are vague enough that I don't see any connection. What I am really looking for is source material that says NLP says X and Chomsky said Y in such a way that the connection between X and Y is crystal clear and immediately apparent to the average Misplaced Pages reader (or to myself). At the moment the X and Y don't seem to have any logical connection. Which specific bits of TG are connected to which specific bits of NLP? If we can't find anything, we will just have to put something suitably vague like 'NLP claims to be based on the work of ...' or similar. What we have right now won't do at all. Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For example:

• "Close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions" - This is vague to the point of meaningless.

• "The metamodel uses language to help clients broaden their perception of reality, which in turn can increase their options for finding resources and solutions (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). Transformational grammar and general semantics provide the foundation for the metamodel. " - This does not explain the exact nature of how NLP is 'founded' in TG.

• "Transformational grammar, as it is used in the context of NLP, is a system for describing the means whereby experience is transformed from raw sensory data, through biologically and culturally imposed constraints, into the highly personal models of the world reflected in individual linguistic patterns." - I don't see any connection between this claim and what TG says. What does TG have to say about experience being transformed from raw sensory data? Peter Damian (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By "raw sensory data", the author means "direct experience" or what Chomsky calls "intuition". See the introduction to Syntactic structures where Chomsky describes the difference between grammatical and non-grammatical judgments. This is central to linguistics. There are the two assumptions we're looking at:

• Journal: Cybernetics and human knowing (p.6 2005): As a start, our epistemological approach has two fundamental assumptions (Bostic-St. Clair & Grinder, 2001). Both of these assumptions are explicit in Chomsky's transformational grammar.

1. "paradigmatic centrality of human judgment based on direct experience (what Chomsky calls intuition)."
2. "human behavior is systematic in the sense of being rule-based; moreover, in the linguistic paradigm, it is assumed that native speakers have internalized the grammatical rules of their native language so that their intuitive judgments are based on these rules." - Malloy, Grinder, Bostic St Clair (2005) "Steps to an ecology of emergence." Cybernetics and human knowing ----Action potential 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is a long way away from 'Chomsky says that X' and 'NLP says that Y' in such a way that there is a clear and evident and relevant connection between the X and the Y. We have

• (X) native speakers internalise the grammatical rules of their language.
• (Y) the metamodel uses language to help clients broaden their perception of reality

Can you show me the clear evident logical connection between the two ideas? That's all you have to do. And please don't refer me to any NLP literature. That's for you. The burden of proof is for you to produce reliable sources to back up claims that can eventually go into the article. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that the Meta-model is not the same as TG. Neither would it be accurate to say that the Meta-model and TG have nothing to do with each other. The truth is somewhere in between. The Meta-model borrows grammar definitions and concepts from TG, but only as much as it is helpful to aid in the process of pattern recognition in the linguistic structures of how the modeled therapists use their language. For example Erickson frequently and intentionally used semantically ill-formed sentences, but in order to even make that distinction you would have to refer back to the concept from TG. It should be restated that NLP is not based on any previous theoretical framework, and that includes TG.--Sublime01 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter and Sublime make good points. There's a gap in the logic. It will help if we can lay out the claims and premises clearly. I'll attempt this. I'll be in the library today so I'll do some research. Some of the references I've looked at today, including some critical papers, say that NLP was influenced by TG and some say that the B&G's main contribution to the field of psychotherapy was via their presentation of TG. Unfortunately, they often gloss over the details. I'm meeting with a research adviser today, hope this will help. ----Action potential 06:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Update: I've found a few reliable references that attempt to flesh out the influences and historical context surrounding NLP. This includes influence of Carl Rogers and Chomsky's transformational grammar, and Bandler/Grinder's response to behaviorism's empirical program. I'm meeting with the research assistant again on Monday. I'll attempt to summarize the main points and premises then post here for your feedback. ----Action potential 02:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Update: I'll be able to post my summary on Monday evening. Sorry for the delay. I have a mid-semester exam tomorrow. ----Action potential 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between languages' deep structures, and that these structures would reveal properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their surface structures. Grinder and Bandler used Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar, in particular they applied the distinction of "deep structures" and "surface structures" as present in the client-therapist communication. They argued that the deep structures represent the core meaning of a sentence and the surface structures to be the syntactic form of the client-therapist sentences.
• Bradley & Biederman (1985), for example, claim the importation of transformational grammar to psychotherapy was Bandler and Grinder's most important contribution to the field of psychotherapy.
• They also claim that Bandler and Grinder work has considered parallels with Husserl philosophy, some of Wundt's ideas and Carl Rogers' phenomenology (Mathison & Tosey 2008; Bradley & Biederman 1983)
• Bandler and Grinder present phase structure trees and linguistic analysis of client-therapist interaction in "Structure of Magic Vol 1&2 (1975) as well as Patterns 1 & 2 (~1976)
• Reference: Bradley, E., Biedermann, Heinz-Joachim (1985): "Bandler and Grinder's neurolinguistic programming: Its historical context and contribution." Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 22(1) pp.59-62
• ----Action potential 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What does Neuro Linguistic Programming stand for?

Right now the intro says: It is claimed by the originators that it draws from aspects of neurology ("neuro-"), linguistics and computer science ("programming"). There is no citation for this.

Here's a direct quote from NLP Volume 1:

"Neuro" (derived from the Greek neuron for nerve) stands for the fundamental tenet that all behavior is the result of neurological processes. "Linguistic" (derived from the Latin lingua for language) indicates that neural processes are represented, ordered, and sequenced into models and strategies through language and communication systems. "Programming" refers to the process of organizing the components of a system (sensory representation in this case) to achieve specific outcomes.

— Dilts, Grinder, Delozier, and Bandler, 1980.

How about we use this as the citation and change the statement to reflect what is said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that was disputed in the past. I think the critics would want it followed by something like "critics dispute the basis of the title." By the way, thanks for posting that quote. Please take another look at the introduction and the first paragraph. I'm trying to show that there are multiple perspectives within NLP. Please review what I've done to the lead. ----Action potential 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes to opening

These go too far, you dumbing down references to legitimate and citable criticisms of NLP. Specifically paragraphs beginning "The reception of NLP has been highly controversial...", "Tension exists between several divergent groups within NLP ..." and "NLP has enjoyed little support within the psychological profession following research reviewed in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the early 1980s. This led some skeptics and psychologists to dismiss NLP as a pseudoscientific or New Age .." Some of the insertions and additional material make sense but given the whole scale changes I have reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

No problems. It was a work in progress. I was trying put the research in perspective. I'm currently researching the different perspectives in psychology: psychodymanic, socio-cognitive/behaviorist, humanistic and biological-evolutionary for a assessment essay. This seems to help better understand the criticism of NLP from the various psychological perspectives. I'll think about it some more and come back to it. ----Action potential 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Can you please take a look at the latest version. It still needs some work. ----Action potential 10:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of changes at once make it difficult to follow! However I have left most, but put back in one cited paragraph that I think is key and balanced up things a bit by reinserting controversial (a cite could be added here with ease). I need to read in more depth but that is a start --Snowded TALK 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've really tried to capture the different points of view and "write for the enemy" by putting the best arguments of critics forward. Sorry for the mass of edits, I'm on mid-semester break and am working on a psych. assignment. I had a bit of time to work on this article. Can I suggest, rather than looking at individual edits, look at the lead as it currently stands. Some of the statements you inserted were not taken out in the first place. The lead really needs to make sense as a whole. It is not there yet but it is a little closer. What are your thoughts? ----Action potential 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, I went through them and will take you word on the one reference removed. I put a reference in for controversial up front. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my word on that. I still really don't think we can have "controversial" at the front. Can you please give your reason for this referring to peer-reviewed sources and the relevant wikipedia policies? The reference inserted was to the Skeptic's dictionary but this is not peer-reviewed or reliable. This is a web site based on a book of the same time. It is written by one author who is extremely skeptical of topics that are concerned for empirical research and experimentation in the laboratory. The author, Carrol, argues that the basic assumptions of NLP are not backed by empirical research. Carrol's argument is similar for questionable science of psychoanalysis which has not been concerned for empirical research but relied mostly on clinical observation. In comparison, brief psychotherapy approaches such as behavior therapy and cognitive therapy have shown much more concern for empirical validation. The Arbcom said that opinions must be ascribed to a source. It seems that whether or not NLP is controversial is a matter of opinion which is best left for the reader to decide. They introduce the topic in a neutral way, presenting the major points of view and controversies and let the reader decide for themselves. I'll go back and read the wikipedia policies about controversial topics, WP:lead and NPOV. ----Action potential 22:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraph has to establish that NLP is controversial. Now it can do that by stated as such, or some of the cited quotes indicated the lack of evidence for it etc. can be higher up. It seemed to me that the latest set of edits were moving that material further down and there needed to be something to alerted a reader to the fact that the claims (as outlined in the lede) are contested. Happy to look at other ways of doing that. We need peer reviewed material but I think you are bing a bit unfair to the Skpetic's dictionary. Firstly it counts as a citation, secondly I think its fairly reliable and it does reference sources. --Snowded TALK 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be arguing here about wikipedia policies NPOV and WP:Lead and quoting these policies to support our arguments. In my view the opening paragraph can introduce and define the topic broadly from a neutral point of view. The third paragraph can contain a summary of criticism and controversy. There is no need to state explicitly that a topic is controversial in the first sentence because it is implied int he third paragraph. I would accept a short sentence in the opening paragraph that summarized the criticism and controversy. ----Action potential 23:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a single word with citation is less intrusive to be honest, but I see you have chose to take action anyway. What it may be necessary to do if move one of the critical paragraphs from later into the opening paragraph unless you think a short sentence can be produced with is not OR or a synthesis. I won't revert for the moment, better to discuss here first --Snowded TALK 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your point about having "controversial" where you had it (someone else removed it). If you still want this can we get a third opinion - I'm too close to it. I'd prefer a one-sentence synthesis of the criticism somewhere in the opening paragraph. As I understand the WP:Lead policy, the lead needs to be a self-contained summary of the article. The opening paragraph could be thought of as an synthesis introduction of the lead. The entire lead could be considered a synthesis of the important points in the article. The lead should be easily understood by an educated person (non-NLP/psychology expert) without having to read the rest of the article. There are some important recurring themes in the criticism and controversies that must to be covered. Other points can be covered in more depth in the body of the article. ----Action potential 12:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge of Worldview and working model of neuro-linguistic programming

I do not see how that article can be defended as a separate article from the main article on NLP--except to the extent that it contains extensive quotations and impressionistic lists that don't belong anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I'm proposing a merge. Just as Principles of NLP was merged to the present article, so should this one. A good deal of the content is duplicative. DGG (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree to merge --Snowded TALK 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Good suggestion, agree.Poltair (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge This is a welcomed suggestion. It would help frame the article and the various perspectives on this topic. ----Action potential 11:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK the,someone who knowsthe subject beterthan I should jsut go ahead. I don't think theexact wording "Worldview... " is a likely search term, so let me know & I'll delete it when ready. DGG (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've merged all the content from that Worldview... page. Please delete the old Worldview page. ----Action potential 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A paper alleging unethical application of NLP techniques by Barack Obama

I ran across a pdf – "Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis techniques in His Speeches" which I suspect may be of interest in connection with Misplaced Pages's coverage of NLP. I'll let others be the judge of that though. __meco (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting find. I knew I recognized some language patterns in Obama's speeches. However, you could make the same argument for JFK's going to the moon speech. That's where many of NLP's hypnotic language patterns come from, by looking through influential speeches of the past and picking apart the language (Jesus included). At least that's what Robert Dilts says is where he got his 'sleight of mouth' patterns from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced over it, and it seems to be a mixed bag. Some real valid and accurate points, but also some big stretches and some inaccurate use of NLP and hypnosis terminology. My assessment is that it's a bit too paranoid and conspiratorial to be taken seriously. It would be interesting to see some expert analysis of this paper.--Sublime01 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just reveted DGG's removal of this section per BLP concerns because I think that is stretching the BLP provisions simply too far. We must be allowed to discuss on this talk page – not in the article, and not in the Obama article – whether this is for real, and by so doing allow expert users to assess the merits of the allegations and if possible find corroborating references to this. __meco (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

this has got nothing to do with the content of this article, unless the intention to to make a reference in which case you would need a much more reliable source. The talk page of an article is not the place for this. Given that NLP begs steals and borrows from multiple sources its not unlikely that anyone with rhetorical ability could be adjudged to use NLP techniques even if they were in complete ignorance of the approach. --Snowded TALK 09:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro and Anti-NLP POV

There has been concern by some people that there has been undue weight on the pro side and that to be balanced statements like "claimed" need to be included. This article should be about the facts of what people in the field of NLP say that NLP is. Whether what these people say is true or not doesn't matter for the article. Please read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. To state an opinion is POV, but to state that a person has stated an opinion would be NPOV, because it is a fact that that person has stated that opinion. So if I were to say "NLP correctly asserts that the map is not the territory" that would be a pro-NLP POV, and if I said "NLP claims that the map is not the territory" that would be an anti-NLP POV. The correct NPOV way to say it is that "One of the principles of NLP is the map is not the territory." is a fact and does not constitute an endorsement in any way. The facts of what NLP critics have said should also be included in the article, but let the facts speak for themselves. Inserting statements like "NLP claims that..." asserts an opinion where there shouldn't be one. As far as I can tell there isn't anywhere in the article where it says "NLP is correct in the assertion that..." or anything similar, unless someone wants to read through again and search for specific examples.--Sublime01 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV again and have a look at some of the debates around articles like Intelligent Design which will give you a wider context for this. At the moment the article seems fairly balanced - do you have specific examples which would illustrate your concern? --Snowded TALK 22:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow the ID debate looks pretty complex. Definitely a good reference for helping to shape this article. The particular gripe I have is that the article now says "on the assumption that those behaviours were responsible for their results." That's not entirely accurate, but I understand why you wanted to say it that way, to frame it as a 'claim'. In one instance their methodology included interviewing hundreds of people about their behaviors and mental processes when they got over a phobia, and then what made it into the phobia model were only those behaviors universally consistent among the majority of interviewees - idiosyncrasies were removed. Then they tested by teaching the model to people, and if a person could get the same or similar results as the person or people it was modeled from, then it was said to be successful. It was not simply based on assumption. I suppose therein lies the claim - are these models actually as successful as they say they are? If there are any studies confirming or refuting the efficacy of something such as, say, the phobia cure, then I suppose that could be referenced or included. One other thing, let's get our tenses straight - that same sentence has past and present tenses mixed. There are people who still practice NLP, and they still seek to observe naturally self-taught expertise.--Sublime01 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ID debate is fun - especially if you track back to Arbcom decisions. On the phobia case you would have to reference that case in a refereed journal and there are lots of reasons why you might appear to get success (not least of which confirmation bias etc) that would explain the conclusions. I'm happy with any description which does not imply that the NLP approach is objective science (unless it is supported by science). For full disclosure I think it is very clearly a pseudo-science with quasi religious overtones in some of its manifestations. However the article is not a place for that, it needs to be objective (respecting NLP claims) which maintaining balance and not endorsing. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that NLP is technically a pseudoscience, in that it uses terminology that sounds scientific. In the psychoanalysis article (also technically a pseudoscience), the pseudoscience debate is presented at the end of the article, and it is not mentioned in the intro. In the hypnotherapy article, the consensus seems to be that it is scientific. NLP practitioners make frequent use of hypnotherapy. Family systems therapy and Gestalt therapy have no mention of scientific validity. To my knowledge NLP does not claim to be scientific - that seems to be a label brought on by people trying to debunk or vilify NLP. NLP is described as "the study of subjective experience" - subjective as in NOT objective reality. Where do you get "quasi-religious" from? From Religion "A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law." NLP is a set of tenets and practices found to be useful only within the context of communication and therapy, and asserts that these tenets are not in any way "correct" or "the truth". There are also some ritual practices, as in patterns of behavior and habit, not with any religious or spiritual context. That's as far as I can see that the similarity goes. My personal bias is towards providing accurate undistorted information about the subject, including criticisms and contradictory findings, as it may serve to further improve the field of NLP. Framing the entire field as "unscientific" or as "quasi-religious" seems more like malevolence to me.--Sublime01 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You might note that I have made not attempt to include some of the above opinions in the article - its not the place for it until supporting material is published. So we share the same bias in respect of WIkipedia. A lot of management methods (LO, Spiral Dynamics as well as NLP) seem to develop cult like properties. You can see the behaviour in people who come off the three week course and there are aspects of indoctrinate evident in their behaviour. We (the company I worked for) had real problems with some groups. Having studied religious cults you could see the similarities. So if you want think cult not religion if it makes it easier. However as I say its balance. I'm not going to impose that view as it would be a POV, others support NLP it would be wrong for them to assert pro comments. We need a NPOV and that was my point above - at the moment it seems balanced. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I see it the meta model helps people challenge the flakey beliefs that accompany indoctrinated culture by challenging the waffle of managers, the babble of politicians and the psychobabble of HR. "How do you know that?", "Am I to assume X", "what X specifically?", ... Evidence-based questions are found in the NLP meta model and courses in critical thinking and reasoning. ----Action potential 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next steps toward Good Article status - input

I want to discuss where the article current is and what is required to bring it up to good article standards. Which sections are good? Which sections need to be improved? How can it be improved overall? ----Action potential 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• How do you want to handle the popular media section? I was reading like PR material. I've converted it to a list of well-known practitioners. It is just a start. What should the criteria be for entry in the list? ----Action potential 06:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of repetition of ideas throughout the article. The study about matching representational systems is mentioned a few times, so is the idea that NLP is concerned with "what works" rather than "truth." It's a difficult subject to put into concise words. Perhaps some of these repetitive ideas can find their rightful place in the article. Also, the entire worldview section is nice but the language seems a bit sloppy and poorly worded. The content itself is good. Maybe we can trim the fluff a bit and just let the meat stand on its own, maybe say the main points in a more concise way without flourishes and over explaining.--Sublime01 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's try to remove some of the repetition and clean up the world view section. I'd like the see some references inserted to support the various points of view there. I think you're issue with repetition (e.g. "do what works" repeated) would be resolved if we developed the paragraphs and sections more. This would involve elaborating premesis, assumptions, evidence and conclusions of the main perspectives and criticism of NLP. At the moment much of the article is an unconnected patchwork. I cannot do anything for a few weeks until after my exams. ----Action potential 12:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see improvements in the lead paragraph. It defines the parent category of NLP, but it is not so clear on what sets it apart from other techniques in the same grouping. How would one point out NLP in a crowd? The last sentence of the paragraph is also unclear; isn't the philosophy worldview and approach of all new concepts defined in early publishings on the subject? To improve that, the paragraph should explain how the contribution of older texts differ from that of newer ones...or just remove the sentence altogether. -Verdatum (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I added that Frogs was from seminar transcripts and Structure I&II was about linguistics and therapy. Based on sales on Amazon, the most popular titles seem to be introductions to NLP, e.g. "Introducing NLP" by O'Connor and Seymore. There are thousands of other books about NLP, often they are just application to other fields such as sport, sales, therapy, dating/relationships ... ----Action potential 23:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• How should we handle the notes and references?? Also, what about "futher reading"? It was generated from the most cited on google scholar in an effort to be impartial. Not sure if this was the best way to go. ----Action potential 11:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Do you want to merge from Therapeutic_use_of_Neuro-linguistic_programming? ----Action potential 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for assocation links

What is the criteria for inclusion of links to associations? Most of the listed associations are not government recognised. Many of them are affiliated with individual trainers and training providers. It is getting hairy. ----Action potential 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to clean up the list (see diff). Often the associations are affiliated with training providers so we need to be careful here. It's be nice to have an objective inclusion criteria so we can avoid arguments in the future. Let me know if I removed anything that must be there (and provide evidence to support its inclusion). ----Action potential 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NLP3

Is there anything to be said about NLP3 that could be included into the article? __meco (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it. Have you seen it mentioned in any reputable and reliable sources? ----Action potential 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Query

The overview section currently says of the founders of NLP, Bandler, Grinder, and Bateson: "The authors stated, in contravention of the professional wisdom of that time, that the internal human experience demonstrated itself in people's behaviors, and could be worked with directly given an appropriate mindset ..."

Are we saying that, before NLP, the professional wisdom was that people's mental lives were not reflected in their behavior, or that mental states could not be worked with directly, or what? SlimVirgin 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Sharpley 1987 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles