Misplaced Pages

Edits Nov 7

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

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

Modeling

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

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

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

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

FT2 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

american cancer society

the american cancer society has some info about NLP.

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

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

FuelWagon 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I've finally got a day off :)

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

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

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

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

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

scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rapport (interpersonal rapport)

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

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

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

Energy

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

Again, Proper Representation in the Opening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round and round we go, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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