Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about weight given to references

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

When it comes to NLP literature in comparison to peer-reviewed research, I think we can represent what NLP says, and how (and if) the research responds to what NLP says. Then we have 2 challenges

1. representing what NLP says fairly from multiple sources
2. representing the research fairly and clearly

I've not thought about number of citations as a means of judging the importance of a peer-reviewed article. Certainly we don't have that many peer-reviewed articles on our page - I would tend to think more of whether the journal is respectable. I would also suggest that newspaper articles and websites may indicate popular impressions (both for and against) but may not represent what NLP actually says, nor what the research says. GregA 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FuelWagon's notion of neutral

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

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

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

Fuelwagon. You want to work with the proNLP censors to delete without any research. You are uncooperative and disruptive. You know the neutral editors can provide evidence when asked. But you argue for it's permanent dismissal. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

FuelWagon. No regard for compromise, just deletion. You are completely like Comaze and other's who want to delete any fact that represents scientific views. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

New Age is and NLP have their core theoretical concepts in common. Both chronologically and philosophically, NLP and new age are the same. You seem to dismiss what everybody else knows for sure. Because you don't like new agers, but you adore NLP. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

So why did you not rewrite it? Because you wish to see the back of it, just as you wish to see the back of reasonable mediation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Fuelwagon. Like I said. You wish to remove all of those views. That is abundantly clear. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

FuelWagon. The charlatanry label is corroborated by many other sources. You have ignored those (Winkins, Levelt, Salerno etc). It is a common view and inferred in the media. Chances are though, you cannot even face reading them because they contradict your own favorite beliefs about NLP being the guiding light. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fuelwagon. You want to get random and roll the dice? Getting even more desperate? No, we have sources to draw upon. Those sources should not be censored as you have done persistently on multiple occasions. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

FuelWagon. Look at the research. It states "empirical investigation of New Age techniques" etc. Look at the philosophical background of both. They are identical. New age all the way and increasingly so more recently. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Fuelwagon, I have personally held back posting the more outrageous claims. The fact is, NLP does not even live up to normal expectations, let alone it's bizzare claims. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

FuelWagon. There are many sources that categorize and compare exactly with those other cults. You seem to be completely unwilling to face those sources. In fact most people would accept those associations without blinking an eye. Yes, NLP is exactly like those other groups! HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

FuelWagon. Unless you love NLP, those statements are completely unbiased. Moreover, they are the statements of experts and scholars. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Fuelwagon, your pov says the other stuff was for critics. The fact is, it also appears in other encyclopedias and online dictionaries that describe NLP. You have not done your homework. You do not care, and you just want to delete facts. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

No FuelWagon. People asked for extra evidence, it was provided, and you then chose to delete it regardless. You are uncooperative. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

No FuelWagon, you do not live up to your own standards. You indeed are not to be taken seriously. If you want to edit on this well researched article, you must start to research before deleting facts that have been verified by others, by mediators - facts that are the general opinion of normal people. If you want to avoid being labeled as a fanatic, you must stop acting like one. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I looked at your link of "occult" use of NLP. The question becomes one of proportion. Do the people who develop and teach and train NLP advocate that it be used for "occult" purposes? Or is saying in the introduction that "NLP is used for occult purposes" like mentioning "Eric Robert Rudolph is a follower of Christianity" in the christianity article. Do the people who developed NLP advocate its use for occult purposes? As "fringe therapy"? etc? Or is this going around and finding the equivalent of Eric Rudolph and using it in an attempt to condemn christianity? Until you have some sources that allow people to verify that the majority of NLP developers support occult uses of NLP, I think this "occult" link belongs in the criticism section. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, FuelWagon, NLP is applied to the occult. The evidence is in books and on the web, and there is a whole lot going on in newsgroups. One interesting development is the use of NLP in spiritual healing, which is mostly an occult activity (shamans and wicca etc). Bandler is a shaman, Grinder is a new ager, the structure of magic, the unconscious (used pseudoscientifically), and so on. To deny that NLP is used within the occult is pure censorship. Please remember that a huge amount of fact deletion has gone on here in the article. You are part of that and therefore, you are part of the fanatical censorship. HeadleyDown 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headley's helpful suggestion

Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it? Because you wish to see the back of it, just as you wish to see the back of reasonable mediation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)"

Gee, that's a good idea, instead of deleting POV statements like "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)", why don't I just rewrite it to say "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific"? I wish I had thought of that. Oh, wait, I did...

edit summary: "Jan Damen describes NLP as occult" edit summary "Reporting the various points of view as being stated by their sources, rather than stateing them as fact." Edit summary: "I'm rewriting the intro so that all POV statements are reported as someone's point of view, rather than reported as a "fact" followed by (name).)" edit summary: "Attribute pro-NLP information to advocates and supporters." edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.)" edit summary "report the NLP point of view in NLP words," edit summary "intro describes the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. URL's to verify." edit summary "attributing to Dilts" edit summary "another source" edit summary "source" edit summary "introduce NLP using the words of NLP supporters. provide URL's so other's can verify accuracy."

So I've got 13 diffs that show me attempting to correct blatant POV statements into something that follows NPOV policy. And I believe all of my attempts have been reverted by the folks who claim to have the "facts". Tell me again how I'm just out to delete information? Tell me again how I haven't tried to fix your problems rather than just "bury" your version of "facts". You guys are creating more work than you are worth. That I decided to start deleting your POV violations after literally a dozen attempts by me that were reverted by you, does not strike me as being unreasonable. I tried many, many times. I even show a few diffs where I attribute some pro-NLP stuff to pro-NLP sources, because some of the POV warriors accuse me of just focusing on attributing the NLP criticism. I haven't been biased here. If it looks like I'm focused more on attributing the NLP criticism, it is probably because every attempt I've made to attribute NLP criticism to some specific source has been reverted. I have been neither unreasonable, nor unhelpful. But at some point you guys have shown yourselves to be unwilling to accept help in bringing criticism withing NPOV policy, that you find it more important to report your "facts" than you care about following policy. Your POV warring has created more work for other editors than you are worth. I've tried correcting your mistakes, but you keep reverting them back. At this point, it seems prudent to simply revert POV violations until you learn how to follow policy. I've tried to fix your violations, I've tried to teach you, I've tried to explain what you need to do, but you have reverted every single one of my attempts to do so. Enough is enough. FuelWagon 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. You made most of these edits during a time when all the other editors were pulling away facts (as they continued to do even recently) plus all of these edits have other attributable citations. The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people. Most people do not want to read 10 plus citations on every line. You made it seem that only one person had those views (that is the wish of the NLP fanatics here). If a reader wants to verify the view, they just look up a single ref. Placing a statement, and placing a name is completely reasonable. All of the edits you made were represented incorrectly. Considering you have also deleted massive amounts of facts also, it shows clearly your intention. You wish to promote NLP. HeadleyDown 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Convenient how you charge me with laziness in one sentence, telling me to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states NLP is pseudoscience" on the one hand. And then when I give you cold hard facts (and I know how you love facts) that I did indeed do as you had so conveniently accused me of not doing, that suddenly "Why did you not rewrite it?" quickly becomes irrelevant and you tell me how you bore of hearing "citations". Nice that you get to decide which rules to apply and when. You have directly violated NPOV policy so many times I've lost count. In response, you charge me with deleting rather than fixing. When I show you literally a dozen examples where I fixed your NPOV violations rather than delete, you suddenly change focus again, and how I wish to "promote NLP". How convenient. It must be nice to decide arbitrarily what is and is not appropriate, rather than sticking to, say, wikipedia policy, for example, as I have. FuelWagon 03:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people." This is exactly the problem. Until you provide verifiable sources (and for someone who is so quick to charge others with laziness, I'll assume you have the vim and vigor to take it upon yourself to figure out what exactly wikipedia policy is on "verifiable sources", rather than simply rely on what you might think is verifiable. Here's a hint, I've told you numerous times that a name in parentehsis is not verifiable according to wikipedia) until you provide verifiable sources that says something is "the viewpoints of many people", you cannot, in fact, report that in the article. FuelWagon 03:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected page

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

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

Please remind yourself with avoid personal remarks policy. Thanks. --Comaze 11:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Flavius, thats a straw man. Since Misplaced Pages isn't about coercion and persuasion but about neutrality, since NLP as I have found it isnt about unethical persuasion (ever read up on "ecology"?), and since Im not about changing people that way, I have no interest in playing games that way. So when you come along saying "You're intrerested in NLP so by the stereotype I have you ought to be trying to do magic and persuade me so why arent you", thats not the standard of mature discussion I look for from you. Why not try the other approach... that we are reasonable humans trying to work jointly on an encyclopedia, and take it from there, instead of insulting condescention? FT2 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The most obvious conclusion a scientist would draw from my failure to state that I am an "expert in persuasion" is that the null hypothesis "NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion" is false. A good scientist would question that word "invariably" too, which you don't. Now turn the spotlight around: what term would you use to describe someone like Bookmain who gives an untrue credential to a source (Morgan) to bolster his own preferred view? Or Headley who tries to retain the "scientific feel" of it anyhow even though he knows it's untrue, because it helps his case. Or JPLogan who removes the founders of the field's cited definition on the mind-boggling basis that it's "POV" to cite it? Just curious your view on those, while we're discuss editor integrity. FT2 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Mysekurity protected the page. While I would have tallies on what should be changed, there are likely too many sockpuppets. Unfortunetely, it looks like I am the only one here who can edit the page.Voice of All 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987

I think the search on the medline stuff is really illuminating of research.

• 7 studies pre 1987 all antiNLP, but all testing representation systems (testing in a way NLP people often say was not effective)
• 7 studies post 1987 all proNLP, only one testing a small aspect of rep systems (testing in a way Flavius says does not prove that NLP was the cause of the successful treatments, since controls and placebos were not used enough*).

There are many more experiments, but Flavius says that Medline really identifies the better research.

Now we know that Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) reviewed existing NLP research (39 and 70? articles respectively?)... and the were evaluating representation systems, specifically PREFERRED rep systems. Druckman also says that Bandler met with them and said that preferred rep systems was no longer an important component (though rep systems remains in NLP). This gives us the basis for discussing the research of NLP.

• Druckman & Swets, and Heap, were very good reviews.
• I don't know of any other reviews of their calibre. Platt summarised 70 abstracts from a website and the skeptics dictionary (and these were all Rep System studies!), and Morgan cited Heap.

Remaining recent sources that review NLP negatively are pretty well summarised by your line summaries. "Writings by Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), and Drenth (2003) also state that NLP is a pseudoscience."

• Eisner - "The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions.",
• Lilienfeld - "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology",
• Helisch - a single article on business and NLP,
• Williams - "Encyclopedia of pseudoscience",
• Drenth - "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science" (paper in Studia Psychologica which Medline didn't index for some reason).

Most of these references I would call biased, and I think that together they represent one viewpoint which is probably shared by Flavius* on science+NLP. The other viewpoint being all post 1987 medline research on NLP, plus the 20 or so recommendations for NLP in medline texts, plus all the research on FT2's Research subpage.

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

Hello Greg. My thoughts are that you have just labeled these refs as biased. Of course you wish yourself or any other NLPpromoter will remove them from the article asap, or write lines saying they are clearly biased. That just about sums up your attitude. Don't state NLP books as biased, but place bodies of independent researchers and psychotherapists as clearly biased. All you have presented is your desire to boost NLP and demote science. HeadleyDown 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I just said those books represent a POV, I don't treat them as neutral sources. Non-neutral = POV = bias. NLP books ABSOLUTELY ARE BIASED to NLP's POV, I never said otherwise. Ever. Please read before you post. GregA 05:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Science Vs. Claims not supported by science

At Misplaced Pages, and every other good encyclopedia, representing all sides worthy of mentions is required by NPOV. These are further bounded by Notablility(merit, or sometimes just popularity), Credability, and even Gradiant of Arbitrary Nature and Redundancy. If you read Earth you will notice a small section at the end with more pseudoscience/religion ideas, but science takes precedence. We cannot list every religion's view of earth here or all kinds of random mythology because:

• A)Not all of it is notable
• B)Such statement's have little backing and logical support
• C)You would have a huge list of arbitrary and contradictory beliefs

The difference between Credability and Gradiant of Arbitrary Nature is that arbitrary nature for articles about expression/art/music ect...does not cause a credibility loss to the ideas of those mentioned in the article. Credability in such articles can be very hard to even give a value to for certain ideas; the value of credibilty will often be undefined. In articles where logic has greater influence, the two begin to merge, as one is inversly proportional to the other.

How does this relate to NLP? Well, NLP applies exclusively to psychology and neuronics(and perhaps you can break it down further). According to Science, the human brain and the mind have an order to them, and are related, as millions of scientists/psychologist would tell you, that fact is just Common Knowledge by now. NLP is mixture of several ideas, some with overlap of more solid ideas, and others are speculative. Some of the core views of its founders are questionable, as are many off-the wall claims by a minority of supporters.

Okay...so we need to checklist credability and notablility. True science takes precedent over less supported ideas, and off-the wall ideas likely are not mentioned period. However, "scientific studies" have varying gradients of scientific nature no matter what, as the degree of assumtions they make will necessarily vary. High credibility research will take precedence, so it will have more weight that unsupported ideas, but those ideas must still be mentioned unless they are non-notable. But what about are friend Redundancy? Well, Misplaced Pages is not an unabridged list of complements and criticism; once you get the point across, then you need not continue to add more. If you are just adding unabridged/excessive complements or just criticism, then that is POV. If you put Science on equal footing as nonsense, then you will have a huge article of arbitrary ideas with no credibility. If you see a study and categorize it a science for the sake of giving it "black and white" precedence over non-scientifically supported idead, then that is POV, as Credibility is the main issue. It is just that things that are truly scientific have more credibility than things that are not when logic applies, because science is the child of Logic applied to uncontradicted Working Assumptions.Voice of All 03:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ho VoA. That was exactly what I was going to say! You must be psychic:) Well, ignoring the fact that you have just stolen my thunder, the fact remains that we must reiterate exactly how credible the scienfic findings are.

OK, here is one way: Sharpley and Druckman are seriously rigorous. They are quoted by Eisner 2000, Lilienfeld 2003, Singer and Lalich 1999, Carroll 2003, Morgan 1991, Winkin 1991, Drenth 2003, VonBergen 1997 and I know there are others. Anyway, the all state (based on either Sharpley or Druckman et al, or both, plus other sources) that NLP is scientifically unsupported.

Here are some of the folk that I have who state NLP is pseudoscience or pseudoscientific:

• Novopashin 2004 Prof of psych
• Lilienfeld 2003 Prof of psych
• Carroll 2003 and in his latter book on critical thinking (he is a PhD and lecturer/writer/and instructs phsychology students on the dangers of placing pseudoscience in your undergraduate research projects and essays and the level of failure you will achieve in your degree if you do so:)
• Beyerstein 2001 PhD and critical thinking writer
• Drenth 2003 Prof of Organizational Studies and Psychology
• Drs williams, Conway, Dalton, Dolby, Duval, Mcmillan, Melton. 2000 (encyclopedia of pseudoscience. These are all big Docs or Profs.
• Eisner 2000 PhD, writer and practicing psychotherapist
• Levelt 1995 Professor of Psycholinguistics (Seriously world renowned with tons of papers and big exemplar tomes) Seriously critical of NLP linguistics and pseudoscince.
• Krugman et al 1995 PhD and well published
• Griffin and Goldsmith 1985 PhDs and well published
• Sala 1999 Lots of PhDs in this tome also. All say NLP uses psuedoscientific promotional concepts.
• Devilly 2004 Australian PhD and well published. NLP is pseudo
• sanghera 2005 Financial times, and well published - good researcher.
• Sollee. N. (2000) Reviews NLP pseudoscience.

We also have some refs that Hans sent us that state NLP is pseudoscience and even anti-science. Once translated they can be provided.

I would like also to re-state that NLP and lots of other dubious subjects are promoted in psychotherapy, business and other similar fields. I think this is a mitigating factor that should be better represented. Trouble is, the promoters don't like it. They keep wanting to delete the fact. If non proNLP editors are actually allowed to make concessions things would go a bit smoother. Onwards and upwards! DaveRight 03:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Dave. My NLP teacher did EMDR and EFT and made money from doing that. Wave your fingers in patient's eyes and tap in a mystery way and you get money. Like a joke:) I think you should make the connection in the article. It shows NLP as bad, but is also shows psychotherapist are stupid for opening the door. Sincerely. HansAntel 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Yes, I have most of those references and concur that they all check out. I will get a move on with the translations. ATB AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you might think this means, but it does not mean that you can ignore what NLP advocates say about NLP. The article must still present the view of pro-NLP using the words of pro-NLP sources, and then the view of anti-NLP in the words of anti-NLP sources. And these sources need be verifiable. Note those who like to call others lazy, a name in parenthesis is a lazy source. A name, book title, ISBN, page number is a verifiable source. So is a URL, and a URL is preferable since it can be verified immediately by anyone. None of this suddenly means that an editor gets to say that "everyone says this" when they only have a source for one name. And while some editors are also quick to point out how they've taken it "easy" on NLP, I'll just point out that I've been taking it "easy" on sources, letting names in parenthesis fly. If you want to take this down to brass tacks then fine, start providing proper sources or it will get stripped out of the article. That's the bottom line. If it is disputed, the only way you can put it in is if you provide a verifiable source to back it up. Clearly some of the editors are getting restless, I've now been accused of being lazy for not fixing someone else's NPOV violations, then when that is proven wrong with a dozen diffs, I'm told that they are bored of all teh citations, with the kicker of "original research" that really, it isn't just the one name in parens that supports it. I've been accused of deleting facts for stripping out completely unsourced statements from the article. I ask the mediator to rein in all these accusers, and inform them that following NPOV policy and citing sources is not "boring citations" and that deleting highly biased and unsourced statements is a proper action according to policy, because I'm growing tired of this. Maybe we just need to wait until arbcom can settle some questions about NPOV policy, because nothing else seems to be putting certain editors in check to follow policy. FuelWagon 04:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Now I don't wish to seem uncharitable, but you must understand that the more neutral editors here are doing a great deal of work - research/translation/verification/triangulation/corroboration and so on. If you are getting tired just have a nap and a coffee, check the references and get on with accepting the fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported, and a significant scientific view states that it is pseudoscience, based on pseudoscience, and uses pseudoscientific arguments to try to excuse itself. AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Its interesting also, that proNLPers will try to delete the clarifying words of NLP developers if it does not suit them, but will promote any vague wishywashy promotional nonsense that NLP promoters place in the text and on the covers of their books - because it makes NLP sound respectable and scientific. Again you are really trying to demand one thing, but reluctant to follow your own rules. AliceDeGrey 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon... regarding your statement that some editors accused you of a violation, which you defended against, then they say they're bored of the defence.... etc..

I was trying to find an example from about 2 months back (to put in Arbcom)... unfortunately I couldn't find it. Anyway, I corrected a statement, had it reverted, corrected again and explained reasoning again plus some references, had it accepted, then it got cut back, then removed as it was irrelevant to NLP (which was true), only to reappear in its original form a few weeks later (I think it was the piece on Psych models being different to NLP models... but there's been so much!). Anyway, I don't know how to avoid that kind of attack long term but if you've got any thoughts let me know. GregA 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

DavedRight, we are in agreement that science takes precedent, but not on all of the specifics. I haven't followed the article in the last two days(due to 2nd Midterms/homework), but I believe that too much anti-NLP was being poured into the article, past redundancy, so I removed much of it about a week ago. There is not enough pro-NLP either. We have anti-NLP, what NLP says, and that is it. I would add pro-NLP mainly to the intro, and that should do.

Also, not all studies are as rigirous as others; there are level of precedence varies. You are more black and white with your precedences than me; precedence does not mean that pro-NLP is almost stamped out, it just gets less mentioning, but not none. I do believe that much of the criticism is fairly solid, but not all of it is concrete, Heap admitted it himself.Voice of All 06:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. I know you understand why this article got into its present condition. It is evolving, but the size has doubled since the insistance of proNLPers to provide extra sources for the critical views, plus their own addition of "how tos" and anything that makes NLP look positive. FT2 added some stuff about applications and support in business and that is fine, as long as he realizes that the hype will be removed, and it will be balanced with views of business and social scientists. I am all for making it more brief, and the views do not have to be deleted at all. They can be prioritised and condensed. That is - if neutral editors don't have to spend all our time arguing for science to remain in the article, or wrestling with Comaze and co with stuff to keep/delete off the face of the earth forever and so on. AliceDeGrey 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice - that would be lousy science. Maybe for once, instead of trying to attack with vague generalizations that are mere meaningless text (and what else is "hype"?) you would cite some specific texts I have added, and evidence to support your view on it? Or don't you think that the more than 20 mentions of the word "pseudoscience" and 8 repetitions of "dubious", alone are sufficient to get the point? THAT is part of what makes this article non-neutral right now. The other thing that might make an article non-neutral is citation fraud. Not that anyone here has ever done that, but maybe to avoid doubt, you could comment on two edits you made that I am sure you have good explanations for: the way you deleted the fact Carroll's quote actually came from the Skeptics dictionary, specifically deleting just that part of the citation to make it look like a research paper line 143, and the way you stated that Morgan was a "scientific assesssment" when you knew it was a mere opinion article discussing one paper, and unreviewed by academic peers ? FT2 08:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FT2, lets dispense with the attacks for now. We can take it for granted you are a pseudoscientific technoshaman and amoral psychocult promoter:) Anyway! Here is a suggestion that even the non-proNLP editors may take offense to (Alice, Bookman and JP didn't like it in the last email communication anyhow). The problem in terms of getting things done seems to me to be the fact that the scientists want to place science at the end of the zealous fanatic's promotional paragraphs, and that tends to lead to the zealots crying: "OH MUMMY! I DON"T LIKE IT, MAKE IT GO AWAY". And they remove it or turn it into more promotion:)

So, the solution would be to be smart about territory. Not complete segregation, but simply to give good weight to science above pseudo (actually place science spatially just below pseudo on the page), put the NLP crap in the opening (of course) but no more than a couple or three paras. Give good weight to science and place a scientific paragraph at the end with an additional criticism line or so. (pretty much as it is).

Then the zealots such as FT2, Comaze, Justin, Greg, FuelWagon and any other spirits of Hubbard can really let rip in their own section with absolutely no sign of scientific logic or evidence for efficacy. Within their own warped perceptions of NPOV they can write anything about Turing machines, unconscious paraliminal learning, submodality shifts within their own paradigm busting NLP language, and how fabulously successful NLP has been in producing legions of new Perls/Satirs/Einsteins/Jesus's and so on.

Then we can have a criticism section with science first (because it is negative), pseudoscience, NLP as a cult/within cults, and how NLP is just a pseudoscientific psychocult that is adopted for the sole reason to take money from sick and insecure people while pretending to be a new science and so on.

Anyway, I think this would solve a lot of problems. Especially as the scientists do complement the zealots to some degree. The zealots will write tons of dodgy nonsense, and the scientists are pretty good at condensing things. Of course, the only problem is some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon or FT2 will remove the whole criticism section at once, but I'm sure some diligent scientist will zip it back pretty quick.

So all parties: What do you think? DaveRight 09:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dave. Personally, I think it is actually worth a try. A change may be as good as a rest, and I notice plenty of other articles are handled in the same way ie with an opening that shows the main claims with a criticism/science section, and the main body showing claims with the lower half showing the findings/criticisms. I also think it will help to sort out the weight problem. It may end up looking like pseudoscience comes first, and that has always been a problem with me, but I am flexible. The scientists seem to be good at finding reputable sources for science and the NLPers are good at representing the pseudoscientific thinking aspects. From the science presented, it is overwhelmingly negative towards NLP(in findings and in view), so indeed it can go into a criticism section and the pseudoscience clarification section also. It'll certainly be an easier way to condense things down (for the scientists part anyhow). Well, I'm all for it, as long as our good mediator is OK with it and is happy to stick around for a while. Best regards HeadleyDown 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually Dave, I think thats what they call a "cop-out". Its highly unscientific. After 2 months of name-calling - mostly by yourself, Headley, Logan, and Alice, someone is asked directly to explain what is by all accounts a curious edit, and this gets two responses: You post a reply that says the question shouldn't be asked, and Alice is silent. I'm still waiting, Alice, for an explanation. FT2 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I'd love to know which question you are talking about. I have heard the statement - you have not answered my question - so many times from people who do nothing but ask different questions all the time. I have to admit, that I have started to ignore the statement because it is such a vague complaint. If you would restate the question briefly when you make that complaint, it would help. Otherwise I will simply ignore it. Regards HeadleyDown 00:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My question was to Dave, not you. My question to Alice still stands though... unanswered. However, if you want a question, here's one. What does it mean that I ask clearly a question to DaveRight, and you answer me saying "Hello FT2. I'd love to know which question you are talking about". FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation is required here, FT2. Now YOU have not answered my question. What was your question?:) Basically it gives you a very fanatical image to accuse non-proNLP editors of not answering questions, when you do not specify which question out of a multitude, and especially when non-proNLP editors have discussed and consistently provided ample evidence for all views already. HeadleyDown 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon" hey, look, I'm a zealot for enforcing policy. Nice. Anyway, policy, and I know I'll get called a zealot for using the "P" word, but policy would generally require that sections generally present the pro-Topic view first followed by critism for areas that are presenting what a topic is. For sections that are generally criticising some specific thing about the topic, the policy is generally to list the criticisms and then the rebuttal. That's a rough guide anyway. FuelWagon 20:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey FuelWagon. Tell me about it! I have just discovered that I have had a compained of being a sockpuppet:):) Just for providing evidence against NLP. Well, I hope that is not mean I can not point out my side of the story.

I read the last weeks comments and I think freezing the article is ok. There are two sides here also. Arbitration looks very early to me. There are the team who don't want mediation/co-operation. It looks like we can definitely put them together. They all voted together and agree to delete science or show science in a wrong way. They dont like co-operating and want to kick the mediator because rational thinker doesnt suit them. Yes it is true you can see that antimediator group does the same kind of arguments and editings.

The antimediator group want to say science supports NLP, and that they can write anything they like about NLP being non pseudoscience. Some say that they are NPOVers but evidence points the other way.

DaveRight showed in his sarcasm that positive/negative placing was a good idea. What does it mean? The only thing needed to do is moving the endings of the applications paragraphs to criticism section. And to put science in criticisms because science is skeptical already and science shows the negative conclusion. Scientists say it.

I have more information (lots) about NLP being cult/unsupported/crazy and I can email it.

So mostly, you get some antimediation people who delete and delete or ask and ask for more fact, and then delete, and annoy scientists because the scientists have taken time to provide facts. Like Vanilius I see that there is nowhere to hide from this. The best to do is to give the antimediator/deleters their own NLP advert, and put the facts in the criticism section - just like it is on the other articles. Sincerely HansAntel 02:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hans - there is a note on your user page to help explain. But no, its not "Just for providing evidence". That's straw man. If you don't know why, ask. As it is, I have explained why for you. FT2 09:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

General views of pseudoscience/psychobabble/salespitch

Perhaps this is just a job for the imagination, but I think it is worth keeping in mind in order to foster a world view. From my perspective as a science major, I straight away got the impression that NLP is pseudoscience. I noticed that VoiceOfAll also stated that "NLP looks pretty pseudoscientific", and a lot of the new age/self help section gets a lot of sideways glances of disapproval from most people. Even the American public talk about it like some kind of "fortune cookie tripe". Anyway, if something comes with outrageous claims (as NLP does in the majority of cases) it is generally seen as flimflam. I had a good hunt around for opinion on newsgroups and so on (outside of all the psychic energy groups who talk pure NLP), and that opinion seems to be fairly widespread. I believe that is very significant. I do recommend that this should be taken into account when considering the scientists who write long chapters on the pseudoscientific nature of NLP and it's connection with other pseudosciences. ATB AliceDeGrey 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been trained as a scientist and make a living at it, so you can save the Appeal to authority arguments, they won't work on me. At issue here isn't a question of "science", it is a question of wikipedia policy. Misplaced Pages policy requires a neutral poitn of view, not a scientific poitn of view. All these appeals to "science" are secondary to wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Report views from the sources who say them. Provide URL's for verifiability. Report the point of views of both sides. What you call "science" is actually only one point of view that is clearly "anti-NLP". Report the anti-NLP views from the point of view of the people who state those views. Provide URL's so that other editors can verify your work. If you insist on claiming that your appeal to "science" is the only thing that need be reported in this article, then the only solution I see is to wait for arbitration to rule you in complete violation of wikipedia policy and ban you from any NLP-related articles. Given the reaction to the request for arbitration with all the appeals to "facts" and given the reaction to having this page locked when POV pushing and an edit war erupted, and given the continued insistence on "science" being the only thing that deserves reporting, it would seem that arbcom is the only solution here. I'm growing tired of the partisanship and the NPOV violations and the advocacy and waiting for arbcom to lower the boom on some POV warriors is looking awfully appealing. Let someone else do the work. Clearly, you guys have absolutely no interest in policy. I've only tried to fix NPOV violations in the article a dozen times to be reverted. I've only been explaining NPOV policy on this talk page since I arrived a month or so ago, and you have no interest. Until I actually see a sea-change in the POV warriors who cite "science" over policy, I'm going to limit my time on this talk page. It is a waste of my time. As long as people contine to argue "science" and "facts" and ignore "Neutral Point Of View" and "verifiability" and "citing sources", it isn't worth repeating myself yet again. Further accusations about me deleting "facts" only proves you are ignoring that those "facts" were disputed and had no source and no means to verify them. Further accusations that I am "lazy" only proves that you are ignoring a dozen attempts by me to fix your NPOV violations. Further accustions that I am pro-NLP only proves that you view my attempts to enforce policy as getting in your anti-NLP way. Until I see the editors here give NPOV, verifiability, and cite sources higher priority than their claimed "science" and "facts", I see little point in continued exercises that do nothing but waste my time. If anyone wants to talk about how to report something that meets wikipedia policy, I will try to answer as best i can. If someone wants to tell me their "facts" override policy, do not expect a reply. FuelWagon 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"NLP looks pretty pseudoscientific" does not mean that is is fairyland-psycho-magic or "psychobabble" ; While some pseudosciences are like that, NLP is usually not. What it means that many of NLP compenets are lacking scientfic support. Some of those ideas may still be useful, while others while just be nonsense. Overall, we do see quite a bit of pseudoscience, but not enough to say comfortably say "NLP is pseudoscience", leaving no room for any other possibilty. I would say that "Many aspects of NLP are considered to be pseudoscientific by psychologists and neurologists".

To back that up, one would need several credible citations(noteworthy journals/studies would be nice). We want to know what credible scientists think, not just some anti-NLP bloggers/humorists /editorialists.Voice of All 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoiceOfAll. Will do. Regards HeadleyDown 07:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start this off:

"In the therapeutic garden a host of pseudo-scientific horsefeathers can be found...what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudo-science is the claim that their presumptions are predicated on scientific understanding and scientific evidence. Often we see that these therapies are presented and justified by such scientific pretensions. Again, I will illustrate this by discussing a fairly recent and popular movement known by the name NLP, an acronym which stands for neuro-linguistic programming" Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13 (reproduced in http://www.allea.org/pdf/17.pdf)

PJD Drenth is Professor (Emeritus) of the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam) (see http://www.psy.vu.nl/fpp.php/departments/workandorganizationalpsychology/people/details.html?id=61). Professor Drenth's published works are cited by approximately 180 other works (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=PJD+Drenth&btnG=Search).

Drenth (2003) paraphrases Levelt, W.J.M. (1995). Hoedt u voor neuro-linguistische programmering . Intermediair, 17/11:

"The psycholinguist Levelt (1995) passed devastating judgment on NLP: It is not informed about the literature, it starts from insights that have been rendered out of date long ago, concepts are not apprehended or are a mere fabrication, conclusions are based upon wrong presumptions. NLP theory and practice have nothing to do with neuroscientific insights, nor with linguistics, nor with informatics and theory of programming. NLP is not interested in the question as to how neurological processes take place, neither in serious research."

WJM Levelt is a preeminent scholar and psycholinguist. Professor Levelt is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt). Professor Levelt's publications number in the hundreds (see http://www.mpi.nl/Members/PimLevelt/Publications) and he is cited thousands of times (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=WJM+Levelt&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N).flavius 10:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY ...The human potential movement and the fringe areas of psychotherapy also harbor a number of other scientifically questionable panaceas. Among these are Scientology, Neurolinguistic Programming, Re-birthing, and Primal Scream Therapy which have never provided a scientifically acceptable rationale or evidence to support their therapeutic claims"

Barry L. Beyerstein (1995) "Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience" prepared for The Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development (Victoria, B.C., Canada) (reproduced at http://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscience.pdf)

Barry L. Beyerstein is Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University. Professor Beyerstein is an prominent psyhcologist that specializes in "Critical assessment of claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience (e.g., ESP, mediums, astrology, handwriting analysis, faith healing, medical and psychological quackery, etc.)" (see http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/beyerstein/CV2.htm). Professor Beyerstein has published over 40 journal articles and has over 100 other publications (books, technical reports, book reviews, editorial comments) (http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/beyerstein/CV2.htm). Professor Beyerstein's published works are cited by over 100 other works (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BL+Beyerstein+&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N) flavius 13:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Science in support of NLP, and pseudoscience characteristics

Some people are talking as though there aren't scientific studies supporting NLP. Lets remember the medline research on NLP and its implications for how we can represent this debate.

1. medline-cited psych studies of rep system studies have had variable results (mostly <1987) (summarised by Druckman, and by Heap). The research has flaws but is summarised as unsupportive of NLP's claims (...of PRS/Rep systems)
2. NLP practitioners say that psychologists have misunderstood rep systems (eg: don't calibrate eye movements, don't ask the right questions, seek 1 preferred rep system)
3. medline-cited psych outcome-based studies have showed a clear effectiveness when NLP processes are used (from non-specific processes) (mostly >87)
4. Flavius says that the outcome-based studies show an effect but they don't prove the effect is from NLP processes (ie the subjects might have gotten better by themselves - which does happen)
5. books on 'crazy therapies', pseudoscience, and skeptics dictionary say that NLP is scientifically unsupported, citing mainly (afaik) the early US Army (Druckman) studies and Heap (both reviewing Rep System studies!).
6. NLP is now taught and recommended by MANY different respected groups (as shown on the Research subpage.

Although the research for and against is restricted to Medline cited research articles, it at least clarifies the differences in research (#1 and #3 above). It is also consistent with the other sources we have read (except for #5 above). We have an opportunity of representing this clearly. GregA 23:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Greg, it doesn't matter how many of these small studies supported NLP, the fact is the scientists have taken them into account, and the verdict is NLP is scientifically unsupported overall, and they do give plenty of reasoning. Regards HeadleyDown 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley... you say you've studied NLP. Heres a term for you: "Generalization". In your case that's a big problem you have. Remember it? It means when you say something like "the fact is the scientists have taken them into account" people like me come right back to ask "which scientists?" And "what about the ones who didn't, or haven't, or didn't do it properly?". Let's translate your sentence from headley rhetoric to scientific language, and show you what science means:

• HeadleySpeak: "the fact is the scientists have taken them into account, and the verdict is NLP is scientifically unsupported overall"
• Scientific interpretation: "a number of scientists, who I am not identifying, state that they have taken them into account. We don't know if its many, most, some or a few comparatively, as the standard of 'taking into account' is never specified by me. I assert that their verdict is in fact shared by every serious scientist and that verdict is one of failure. however I am aware that in saying this I have not checked how many or what proportiopn it represents, nor am I taking any account of caveats, experimental criticisms, or people who say that unsupported doesn't mean 'doesn't work'."

See the difference? The latter is what your words actually translate as. Your own wording is mostly "puff" (rhetoric, hype, exaggeration for effect).

FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Again, you seem to be arguing for the removal of scientific fact. The statements I make on the article are quite encyclopedic and neutral. You are interpreting the NPOV aricle in the most fussy way possible. The fact is, there is a significant view that NLP is unsupported, that there is no reliable evidence for the normal effectiveness of NLP, and of course there is no evidence whatsoever that NLP is the theraputic magic that Bandler et al claim. If you would like to look at the article, there are many scientists there who have stated that NLP is scientifically unsupported. What's more, generalization is not a problem. It is not even a problem in linguistics or psychology. It is a normal speech phenomenon, and a normal way of thinking. I understand that overgeneralization is a problem. So instead of analysing me using NLP insecurity boosters, why don't you go and do something useful, like provide evidence for the fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. You have done so much demanding, but you offered not one bit of effort to searching for the information yourself (it is abundant). I notice also that when the mediator asked for information about use of RS and PRS in recent books, there was no effort on your part to pick up any of the NLP books you have access to and show the mediator that it is commonly used. Your promotional agenda is completely obvious. But I should be fair, Comaze, GregA, FuelWagon and Justin are just as reluctant to face or show the obvious facts that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No headley. The statements above show exactlky why your wording is unscientific. Its "puff". if you write like a scientist you'll be received like one. But you rarely do. You cite science to make a WP:POINT, not because you are a scientist.

FT2. Show me exactly what you mean. I have no idea what you are talking about. I present evidence that shows the views of scientists and that their views are - NLP is scientifically unsupported, or that NLP is ineffective, and that is is pseudoscientific - and I have written them exactly as they would be received and published in a grade A journal in psychology. I understand that Misplaced Pages has slightly different criteria (but only when people such as you become unreasonable), and I am quite happy to write "Mr Professor says NLP is just lots of wind that leads to negative results" as long as that is what will satisfy the wikipedia criteria for encyclopaedic writing under circumstances of fusspotical scrutiny. HeadleyDown 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, you're making stuff up. What about my clarification of PRS vs Primary Rep System vs Rep Systems (with quotes from Frogs?). Perhaps if you didn't accuse so much you'd have time to answer some questions. Eg: Please respond to the pseudoscience questions I've asked for each pseudoscientific point. GregA 10:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg. You have not presented any questions as regards pseudoscience in this section. If you would ask some questions, perhaps I could respond. HeadleyDown 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific characteristics

Now there are many indicators of a pseudoscience, and Lilienfeld do say science differs from pseudoscience in DEGREE, not in kind, with fuzzy boundaries ( pg 5). So a quick look at Lilienfelds classifications of a pseudoscience (which I'll discuss with reference to NLP):

• An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification.

Note the word "overuse". Naturally it's not our job to analyse the research and whether the NLP response to Rep System studies is correct or not... so I'll simply say we can only represent what they say (if they're correct it's a justified ad hoc response, if they're making excuses it isn't). Lilienfeld note that such responses should enhance the theory.

• Absence of self-correction

This isn't listed on our page, I assume headley et al see that NLP does self correct (eg Bandler changed the teaching of PRS/Rep Systems in 86, as he said to Druckman&Swets). Also self correction is a fundamental principle of NLP ("if what you're doing isn't working, do something -anything- different")

• Evasion of Peer Review

(If claims were true, why were they not properly documented and presented to the scientific community? - Eisner 2000). A good question. For one, the rep system claims were documented but misread by many in the scientific community, part of that is probably the focus on live teaching vs books (or transcripts of seminars)... either way not good! Secondly, they're doing peer review in their own way... the NLP focus is on modeling and working with individuals on patterns of excellence, teaching people new patterns and getting feedback from practitioners - However NLP clearly does not teach the scientific method, and with regards to peer review of the applicability of processes they modeled it is lacking. Note also the goal is to duplicate an expert's patterns not to validate the expert's way of doing something. I tend to agree with this criticism of NLP's reaction to research on rep system processes (as distinct from NLP)... I think many users don't care, generalise all the research as incorrect when some will have gotten it totally right (NLP should make those clear, even when they disprove!).

• Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation

Our page says "eg reliance on asking how rather than why", which seems to be quite different to this pseudoscience characteristic as it's unrelated to trying to disprove or confirm something. A principle of NLP modeling is getting all the elements of a pattern, and then removing each and every element to determine which elements actually affect the performance (ie part of the pattern) and which elements are unnecessary. This is a different approach to psychology, but has a similar goal. I agree that many NLP practitioners don't bother with questioning a processes' research backing, though again practitioners look at what they're doing during a process for evidence that they should do something different (rather than assuming it's working)

• Reversed burden of proof

NLP used their own version of proof, and I agree they should have responded better to the psychological testing of NLP processes by doing their own research (which some did). The lack of communication between NLP proponents and Psychologists to do research that both agreed was correct has hobbled psychological acceptance of NLP.

• Absence of connectivity (inventing somethign new instead of developing on well-established stuff

NLP builds on the shoulders of others by modeling an expert in a field. It's a different approach to psychology and both have value. An NLP process is often connected LATER to existing theory. If it was connected before modeling then it wouldn't be NLP.

• Over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence.

NLP modeling does measure things on a personal/qualitative level, and it measures against a single model (which statistical analysis can't do). Once again the modeled process can be tested but NLP vs Psychology methodology and training has been an issue. I think this criticism of NLP processes applied to therapy is a fair one from a scientific viewpoint - and is true of many psychotherapies.

• Use of obscurantist language (our page says: eg meta programs, parapragmatics, sub-modalities etc)

Never heard of parapragmatics... try a google search :). Any field will make terms where necessary for what they are teaching, the criticism is if they're overused. Some NLP terms are taken from linguistics and other areas. Anchoring is different to conditioning. I'm not sure what else you'd call sub-modalities (can anyone help there?). Metaprograms I'm not trained in but perhaps they could be called personality traits. Anyway, most NLP terms are descriptive and defined.

• An absence of boundary conditions

Lilienfeld says: "Most scientific theories are clear on the contexts of application (where pseudosciences say it works over an exceedingly wide range of conditions)". Headley has been pushing the idea that NLP says it is "universally applicable"... perhaps this is related. An NLP process is context specific (and Grinder requests that any NLP model description include context descriptions), though modeling can be applied to many contexts, and NLP communication processes can be applied to communication (which is in many contexts). NLP also teaches to alter the process used depending on the context and feedback from a subject (ie a process is not universally applicable), and this is one NLP criticism of PRS studies which ignore the context and don't allow the use of a different process for subjects not responsive to rep systems).

• The mantra of holism

Now, in my answer to "absence of boundary conditions" my statement along the lines of "NLP is about calibrating whether something is working, and if it isn't working use something different", may sound like the 'mantra of holism'. I agree. It's also one of the criticisms of psychologists in the field to the control exerted by research psychologists. I'm not sure how to present this here, I do know that the scientist-practitioner gap is an issue (see page 2 (1st paragraph on the gap), and page 3 (1st full paragraph) of Lilienfelds book online ). The criticism includes psychologists, it is a generic problem with research on psychotherapies. GregA 23:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, Greg, it doesn't matter how much essay writing you do, the fact is, many scientists and profs have classed NLP as a pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"many scientists"... see WP:WEASEL. The problem is, we don't know if that "many" is representative, or accurate. It could be many, and many not. or many, but including many that are inaccurate. What we do know is, reviews of literature keep including that awkward comment that it isnt proven, but it isnt disproven. It's still "jury out". FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. "Many" is not what I wrote in the article. It is a fact though. I can and will specifically state that all the scientists or experts mentioned (eg Drenth and 20 or so others) state that NLP is pseudoscience. And I will explain, as per wikipedia policy, why they think that. Now, I would like to keep the article brief and only have to write a couple of refs to back up the fact that an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscience. However, your constant harassment will lead to many many references being cited in order to satisfy your ridiculous objection. It doesn't have to be like this, but you will push things in that direction. Then of course you will complain again. I am sure most neutrally minded editors here will just have to accept that, and tolerate your unreasonable whinges with a due sense of humour. HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Naturally Headley it doesn't matter how much writing I do! :) It's what's in the writing. Any responses to the above pseudoscientific characteristics (which have largely been identified by yourself) would be interesting to take this discussion forward GregA 06:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Greg. There are many pseudoscientific characteristics of NLP. I would like to hilight those in the article to enhance the educational and consumer protection value of Misplaced Pages. HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you unable to respond to my comments here and discuss what you see as characteristics? GregA 09:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Medline supporting research

I mentioned 7 research papers in medline supporting NLP (there were many more review and tutorial papers in support). There were also 7 papers NOT supporting NLP and all were Rep System papers. Anyway, I realise most people won't have read everything Flavius posted, so these are the supporting papers with Flavius's and my comments:

31 Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Sumin AN, Khairedinova OP, Sumina LIu, Variushkina EV, Doronin DV, Galimzianov DM, Masin AN, Gol'dberg GA. Klin Med (Mosk). 2000;78(6):16-20. Russian. PMID: 10900863

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

COMMENTS Flavius: Findings confounded by the administration of multiple, simultaneous psychotherapies.
COMMENTS Greg: Yes - they used muscular relaxing, NLP, hypnosis, and metaphors. The thing is that physiology (muscles), ericksonian hypnosis (erickson was NLP's 3rd model!), and metaphors are all standard part of NLP too.

36 Treatment outcome in tobacco dependence after nicotine replacement therapy and group therapy

Gorecka D, Borak J, Goljan A, Gorzelak K, Mankowski M, Zgierska A. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1999;67(3-4):95-102. Polish. PMID: 10497441

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

COMMENT Flavius: No control (no treatment) or placebo group.
COMMENT Greg: They compared against a nicotine patch and found NLP Group Therapy far more effective. Agreed they did not compare against non-NLP group therapy.

37 Impact of the application of neurolinguistic programming to mothers of children enrolled in a day care center of a shantytown.

de Miranda CT, de Paula CS, Palma D, da Silva EM, Martin D, de Nobrega FJ. Sao Paulo Med J. 1999 Mar 4;117(2):63-71. PMID: 10488603

ABSTRACT:

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

COMMENT Flavius: Randomized control trial with an apparently sound design. The design incorporated a control group with no intervention but no placebo group. The study tells us that something is better than nothing but it fails to tell us if NLP was better than placebo.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows that an NLP intervention helped them, but it doesn't say whether just chatting would have helped (would "just chatting" be a placebo? How exactly do you do a placebo in this context?)

39 Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming.

Konefal J, Duncan RC. Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):1115-22. PMID: 9923190

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

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. NLP was used and even after 6 months the social phobia was far reduced from initial scores, but doesn't compare social phobia changes after no treatment.

43 Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control.

Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA. Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32. PMID: 1620774

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

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed just like above. They found significant changes from a 21 day course but didn't compare that against people who didn't do a course.

49 Effect of neurolinguistic programming training on self-actualization as

measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory. Duncan RC, Konefal J, Spechler MM. Psychol Rep. 1990 Jun;66(3 Pt 2):1323-30. PMID: 2385721

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

COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Yes it showed 24 day NLP training significantly changed self actualisation, but didn't compare against people who didn't do any course.

51 Comparison for aphasic and control subjects of eye movements hypothesized in neurolinguistic programming.

Dooley KO, Farmer A. Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):233-4. PMID: 3211676

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

COMMENT Flavius: Weak conclusion, doesn't demonstrate the validity of eye accessing cues.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows differences between aphasic and control and the abstract doesn't say whether there were consistent directions etc.

In summary....

There was much research on NLP considered of sufficient quality to report in medline indexed journals but that lacked some of the controls and placebos that can make research that much more definitive. These findings are still significant, the treatments did help people, and doing the NLP as described will make a positive difference - we just can't say how it fairs in terms of other choices. This is important to represent. Note still the absence of any non-supportive findings in Medline research other than representation systems research (6 studies pre 87, one post 87) GregA 06:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Eisner's summary: These kind of studies are fatally flawed.(Eisner 2000). Lilienfeld says the evidence is overwhelmingly unsupportive of NLP (Lilienfeld 2003) and many others are similar or more harsh. It doesn't matter what research you do, the fact is, the view is that NLP is scientifically unsupported. Moreover, many of these scientists say that NLP is ineffective or does not work. Plus, many business scientists and sociologists and business people in general say NLP does not work. I can see now that by phrasing "NLP is scientifically unsupported" will simply lead to FT2 claiming that "we don't know yet". Whereas the fact is a very significant view is that NLP does not work. Perhaps it should be stated that way in order to clarify things for editors such as FT2 who will make any desperate language contortion in order to promote his beloved NLP. HeadleyDown 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Lilienfeld uses Druckman & Swets as his source for NLP being a pseudoscience - that's Rep System research from 88 - which puts Lilienfelds whole Pseudoscience comments in quite a different perspective. And these studies quoted above are the NLP studies in journals deemed by Flavius to be the best of peer-reviewed journals (since they are referenced by Medline). Some of Eisner's criticisms aren't relevant - eg: If 6 months after treatment social phobia was still reduced - then the social phobia is reduced (you can't argue they're just ACTING like they're no longer phobic - it's in their behaviour!). GregA 09:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. To respond to your question; The whole new perspective you talk about seems to be your perspective alone. Again, do we quote you? Also, though he demonstrates clear scientific thinking, Flavius does not profess to be a quotable expert in NLP research. Eisner, on the other hand is an expert in psychotherapy and well known writer. His views have already been expressed by other writers in quotations and corroborated. So Eisner is eminently quotable. Sorry Flavius, I am not allowed to quote you in the article:) Damn! HeadleyDown 09:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown. I was going to reply to GregA just as you have. GregA I'm not quotable nor do I pretend to be. I'm not the arbiter of good quality research. I merely directed your attention to the stature and indexing policy of MEDLINE. My statement regarding MEDLINE was prompted by FT2s citation of numerous unpublished dissertations and an article in Anchor Point. It is true to say that if a journal is indexed by MEDLINE then it is reputable. However, due to the broad coverage of MEDLINE it is not true to say that all reputable behavioral science journals are indexed by MEDLINE, i.e. there are reputable behavioural sciences journals that are not indexed or more usually partially indexed (eg. Studia Psychologica) by MEDLINE. The point is that the experts HeadleyDown et al have cited are quotable, they have performed literature searches and they are well-placed to judge the quality of research. We should defer to the expert opinions of Lilienfeld, Eisner, Drenth, Levelt, et al rather than attempt to perform our own literature survey. The relevant literature could perhaps be compiled and summarised for educational purposes but it shouldn't serve as the basis for second-guessing expert opinion (that would be original research perhaps of dubious quality). flavius 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony Robbins

Sure, when you try to explain NLP to people they are often highly suspicious. All that pseudospeak sounds too much like a sales line. Actually here is something for the weekend: http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html

Dave Barry attended a Tony Robbins seminar. Pretty funny and a fairly common attitude. Regards HeadleyDown 10:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html says, 'Robbins is probably the most successful "graduate" of NLP"'. Question about wikipedia policy: Given that this statement is not referenced, nor does the author provide any evidence for the statement -- are we to assume that this is a personal opinion of the author? If so, is it relevant? Just as an example, what factors determine the weight given to this reference? --Comaze 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I can't find anything on the Robbin's link that says he is an actual proponent of NLP. Misplaced Pages can report that "skeptics dictionary describes Robbins as a successful graduate of NLP", but we would have to report Robbins point of view if he does not associate himself with NLP. The skeptics dictionary article on NLP varies between neutral reporting of facts to editorializing and advocating against NLP, so it should be treated as a disputed source, meaning any statements that we report from them should clearly be attributed to them. The way the playing field around NLP looks, I think that's pretty much the standard rule. people either love it or hate it, so any statements about NLP needs to be attributed to the source it came from (regardless of how "boring" some might find the citations). FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I'm with you that Robbins doesn't associate himself with NLP. We know he applies NLP to his work and that he's very popular, but most people don't realise that. He's also not representative of NLP. Perhaps we need to clearly explain Robbins as a subsection, he's used as an NLP example in several places (including wild claims) and I think equating him with NLP confuses this article. GregA 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Again in response to your point. Robbins still talks about NLP and I have evidence that he still works in cooperation with Grinder. He used to be a close partner with Grinder and still has business connections. But the most telling evidence is in Robbin's books and in how Robbins is represented in articles about him. Authors, journalists, scientists and others relate him directly to NLP and attribute his success to NLP. He is still the biggest representitive/promoter of NLP in the world (according to lots of recent literature). Regards HeadleyDown 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, can someone please take a look at Dave Barry's website and show me how Dave's assessment of a Tony Robbins seminar has any relevance from the wikipedia requirement that sources be "notable"? The guy is a humorist, not a journalist. His page announces on the very front "if you leave this webpage, I will kill this defenseless toilet". All this talk about "facts" and "science" and whatnot, and suddenly we're taking advice from a guy who is the newspaper equivalent of Gallagher and his smashing watermelon shtick. Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion" but that's about it. Science indeed. This has been a mud slinging contest from the beginning, and enlisting the likes of Dave Barry is only more proof of that. FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FuelWagon. Misplaced Pages is not a butcher's shop. The cold scalpel of surgery is only the metaphor of war. What we have here is a landscape of viewpoints. The highpoints represent the most independent and clearest freely moving views. The clouded and brambled valleys involve the narrow views of doctrine and beurocracy. If you are willing to take the high view you will be more likely to see which views are the most appropriate and representitive. Barry does represent some view. I am not saying that he is gospel. But if his view does not resonate with you, I would say you are deaf and blind to multiple viewpoints. By criticising my decision to present Dave Barry on a Friday evening, you seem to want to take the life out of wikipedia. Your scientific training can dull your senses. If all you want to do is work by numbers, you are not doing the work of an encyclopedist. We are here to cooperate. I am quite content to be a wanker, if all you want to do is play with mud, I am willing to put up with your behaviour. Misplaced Pages can be lively. You want to heckle from the wings? Or do you take particular offence at Barry's perspective? HeadleyDown 15:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your numerous allegations, I repeat what I said about Barry earlier: " Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion&quot; but that's about it." If you see a violation of policy, please let me know. Your sudden appeal to humor, that I'm just "working by numbers", falls flat given all the imaginary policy violations you continue to accuse me of. You accuse me of being lazy for not fixing your NPOV violations. When I show a dozen diffs that prove your accusation wrong, you don't apologize, or retract, you come at me with a new accusation. Sorry, but I do not find you funny at all. FuelWagon 16:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, your lack of perspective is very telling. I suggest you keep your insecurities and biases under closer raps. HeadleyDown 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, whatever the rights and wrongs of FuelWagon may be, these are yours: You are (apparently and judging you by your multiple posts on Misplaced Pages NLP) incapable of scientific self-criticism, unable to master the idea of neutrality, and lacking in respect for authority of formal policies. You seem (again judging you by your editing) to have a belief that somehow rules do not apply to you, you are rude, hostile, you are an amateur gamesman who uses rhetoric instead of honest debate when questioned, and you are a fanatic and a vandal. Such attitudes have no place in editing an encyclopedia, because an encyclopedia is neutral. Their place is on an opinion ebsite, such as a skeptics forum, discussing with others how much evidence can be found regardless of provenance and quality, so long as someone can be quoted saying words that support the desired view, and preening on one's mastery of the subject and clear sightedness. In truth, judging you by your time here, my view is that you are not clear sighted. My opinion is that you are tunnel visioned. Or, as you would doubtless phrase it, you are tunnel visioned (eg FT2, 2005) FT2 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The accusation made ("If all you want to do is work by numbers, you are not doing the work of an encyclopedist."), a quote to disprove ("Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article"), and a response that changes the subject ("keep your insecurities and biases under closer raps"). Oh, I've got perspective all right, I can see right through you. Now it's my turn for a suggestion: I suggest you keep your accusations to yourself. FuelWagon 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. Funny thing is: I never intended to include Barry as a citation. Now it seems that we have a very good reason to. HeadleyDown 17:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Barry's article never mentions NLP. By itself, it is off topic. FuelWagon 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"The guy is a humorist, not a journalist." I warned everyone that this can happen, not all of the criticism has high precedence, it varies; not all of the studies are as solid as the others. If Dave Barry is popular enough, then he is notable, but either way has limited merit and minimal credibility. Therefore his claims have low precedence, they are as unsuported as some of the claims by NLP practicitioners. Which brings up another idea...NLP=/=NLP practitioners. While several of them have made ridiculous claims and associated them with NLP, lets be careful how much we word that to reflect on NLP. I could say "I killed this girl who rejected my because I am Aethiest!", but how much is that really criticism of Athiesm unless it is commonplace(and that is not)?. I encourage everyone to think about the pretty blue text here and above before editing, especialy since you can't actually edit the article yet anyway, so you might as well do it. Do not just see what things you agree with me on, but look at the rest. This should avoid much of the past edit warring.Voice of All 18:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight: "some zealot such as Comaze, FuelWagon or FT2".

I really don't think that comment was necessary. For the sake of progress, I suggest that you refrain from using Personal Attacks on this page. Thank you.Voice of All 20:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks VoiceOfAll. I realize Barry is not necessarily going into the article. As per Alice's comment, perhaps this is just a job for the imagination. I have noticed a tendency for the NLP promoters to skip over the general view that NLP is regarded quite suspiciously by much of the public. I am not going to give a survey, but I suppose I do have a few refs to back up this point. I may present them. Otherwise, it is just food for thought. Regards HeadleyDown 00:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I read some joke articles in France, and they say the same like the Dave Barry one. It is more common opinion in France. French business people hate NLP and straight away see the pseudoscience. French people are very antisecte and antiscientologie. I will look for them. Sincerely HansAntel 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Science

(this is a draft I've been putting together for my POV on the NPOV portrayal of NLP and science. It has some bits I'm quite happy with, and some bits that are incomplete or useless... I ran out of time and I'm going to bed!... I'm putting this here anyway and if anyone can help clarify or expand (without removing) please do) GregA 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP began outside the academic mainstream. Many trainers describe NLP as a science, or as an art and a science (John Grinder), though there are also many NLP practitioners and trainers who don't refer to science at all. NLP is often described as "the study of the structure of subject experience", which fits the informal definition of science as "any systematic field of study, or the knowledge gained from it". However NLP's principles and epistemology differ from typical scientific studies - NLP does not teach or use the scientific method, nor does it use psychological statistical methods. Psychological testing of NLP processes has been done (and continues to be done) with varied results, and some responses from the NLP community to this research have lead some researchers to describe NLP as pseudoscientific (Lilienfeld et al 2003).

Comments

Hello Greg. Firstly, you will have to state exactly what is not a science, and who says NLP is not a science. As it stands, NLP presents itself as a science and that is how it is sold according to the literature. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP and Psychology

NLP and Psychology have different approaches to people. When working with subjects, psychologists wish to ensure that any interventions have been researched and validated to ensure appropriate use and application (regardless of how the intervention was created). In contrast, NLP processes are taught as modeled on effective therapists, with the principle of constantly communicating with a client and adjusting what is being done to ensure appropriate use and application. These approaches can be combined (eg: NLP could model a process from an effective therapist, train multiple therapists, and Psychology could research whether the new process is effective), but the training and background of a Psychologist is quite different to an NLP practitioner's - and research has suffered.

Further differences exist between NLP Modeling and Psychological reseach - including:

1. NLP attempts to avoid having any beliefs or expectations (a priori knowledge) during the initial stages of modeling (or while working with a subject). Psychological research uses the scientific method which includes making a hypothesis - which is a proposed explanation to be researched to determine its validity - and NLP classifies this as a filter on our experience, something which may mask or distort what is being studied.
2. NLP models individuals to study the way they do what they do (to find individual examples of excellent processes), Psychological research uses representative sample groups combined with statistical analyses to determine overall effects and their significance.

Many Psychotherapies lack research support and there is a strong argument from the Psychology community to only use researched and validated techniques. Many therapists argue that the strict controlling manner in which psychologists study a therapy actually negates the therapies effectiveness (by isolating 1 or 2 variables of the therapy from all other associated factors).

NLP is not a type of Psychology

NLP can model a therapist, but it can also model a golf pro (for instance). NLP would model the golf pro, teach the new "golf" process to multiple people - and THEN the new golfer's performance can be measured (by playing multiple games).

Comments

Greg, you have to take into account that NLP claims that many things are models, and therefore NLP modeling is vaguely defined. For example it states that the SMART goals setting standard is a model. If so, then NLP modeling claims to be far more than the method you describe. Quite frankly, the less you mention about NLP modeling, the better for you. Otherwise, there is plenty of criticism that can make your lines look really stupid. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. I had no idea you didn't understand NLP's definition of modeling. 6 weeks back there was a criticism on the site implying that NLP models were of low quality and referencing Michie's info on Psychological models .. but it totally misunderstood NLP modeling. I wrote a section at the time, but JP criticised it (iirc) as irrelevant to NLP modeling (which it was), so it was removed. If there is still this confusion perhaps something must be said. GregA 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I certainly understand NLP does not like to give good definitions, and this follows with their use of the term "model". This has been criticised and NLP modeling has been criticised by Carroll (PHD) and others. I remember that someone asked what it meant that NLP models were different from psych models, and so an explanation was provided (Psych models show statistically measured associations between constructs, and the constructs themselves are subjected to thorought factor analysis and such). I think I still have that explanation stored away somewhere, though it needs to be shortened, it could provide useful in explaining Carroll and other's view (an option somewhere down the list of priorities). Regards HeadleyDown 11:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Testing

NLP processes have been tested and the results are inconsistent. Several psychologists interpret the mixed results as indicative against all NLP.

• "NLP has been empirically tested over many years, and it has been found to be largely ineffective (Thaler Singer & Lalich, 1996)."
• "A review of research showed that NLP is scientifically unsupported (Heap 1988)."

Early NLP research (pre 1987) was almost exclusively on representation systems (such as Eye Accessing Cues & Preferred Representation Systems) and largely found these to be unsupported. Later research expanded to other NLP processes (but less research), and there has been some more recent outcome-based research showing significant effects.

Comments

Sorry, Greg, but as we have many requests for exact quotes and citations, the line will read, NLP is scientifically unsupported, it's principles are unsupported, its's effectiveness is unsupported, and it is considered ineffective by Mr, blah blah etc.HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Representation System Research

Prior to 1987, most research of NLP focussed on the primary representation systems (VAKGO)- particularly the theory that we have a Preferred Representation System (PRS - a system used in preference to all others). These studies have mostly failed to find any evidence to support the existence of a preferred system, and have also rarely found a correlation between the words used with an eye movement (eg: saying "It looked promising" should correspond to a unique eye movement, often up to the left) - (Reviews include Druckman & Swets, 1988; Heap, 1989). Platt (2003) cites 1/3 of studies supporting representation systems theories.

Druckman & Swets (1988) note that Richard Bandler (NLP co-creator) approached them during the government review and said that the Preferred Representation System was no longer an important component of NLP. It is not stated whether this came about through internal NLP development or was the result of the psychological research results.

Comments

Greg, here you are editing selectively. We have a great deal of views that state after 1990 that NLP modeling is highly suspect, if not pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. This section is on Rep System Research. BTW, since you aren't clear on modeling which do you mean here? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Modeling draws a lot of background from Dilts, Bandler, and Grinder and their BAGEL "model". This was developed early on and is still used. They claim that it is a model in itself. As above, it is used to model geniuses as can be read about in Dilt's and other's books about Einstein, Jesus of Nazareth, Sherlock Holmes:) and others. Its not that I am unclear on modeling, its just that NLP is both particularly vague and unclear on modeling and erroneous/pseudoscientific according to basic tennets and claimed efficacy (according to critics). Regards HeadleyDown 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Greg, again, you are delving into discussion. If you want to do this, the article will be far bigger than necessary, and I notice that there is far more negative than positive in Druckman's paper (look at the section on the background concepts for instance). You will be wise to keep it breif. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The representation system research has been criticisd by the NLP community as not effectively testing the actual NLP processes. This criticism includes the practitioner not being trained by NLP trainers, confusion between primary representation systems and preferred representation systems, inappropriate contexts to study representation systems, poor questions used to elicit these behaviours, and lack of calibration to each individual.

Comments

Greg, here you are overrepresenting a paper (Einspruch, that has since then been completely found to be wrong, including the addition of further empirical evidence. With further corroborating triangulation with recent authors. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Einspruch is one criticism. Andy Bradbury is another. More than either of them though is Druckman & Swets comments on problems in all the PRS studies. (Yes, ALL). GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Research on other NLP processes

NLP contains many different processes for change work, though the great majority of research is on the Representation Systems. The first and principle NLP process is the metamodel (a pattern for linguistic intervention) and there is little research on the metamodel at all.

There is other minor research supporting various processes - V/K Synaesthesia patterns, Spelling strategies, Rapport, submodalities, swish pattern, and metaprograms . Platt (2001) cites 9 studies of the phobia reduction process, of which 5 supported the process. No research on individual patterns is published in journals indexed by Medline, whether supporting or not supporting their efficacy.

(this section needs fleshing out considerably, and correction. There are multiple studies on specific processes though none indexed in Medline. I'm also assuming there will be some studies which show no support for various patterns. I'd like to identify these). I'd say the Research subpage also has more which I'll add asap (if someone else doesn't first)

Comments

Greg. It does not matter how much you flesh it out. The conclusions will make the whole circular extremely stupid looking. Again, the wise move would be to keep it brief. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you would provide some counter to the Research subpage stuff. I'm clear on PRS studies but this less so. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved headley's comments to the right place!GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Greg, I have done some more work on the research you presented (the small positive support). I can find at least double the amount of research that looks at those NLP areas and shows negative findings, plus it points to the above research as being flawed or explainable by other means (not NLP). Now, I believe I am quite a mild reviewer and I generally pass PhD candidates on the first review as long as the hypotheses and arguments are sound, and pass conference papers on the first or second round after corrections. But to present your own research to this article is strictly against NPOV and you will end up with wars over each and every paper you present. That is going to be extremely antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia. Just picture the amount of dispute that you and other proNLPers have given others over the reviews, and apply that to each of the single research papers you present. That's going to be totally against normal wikipedia policy and convention, and a complete waste of time for all. Regards HeadleyDown 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's excellent, you've found lots I assume you have some links? I don't want to make this section big but I do want to read your proof that you're not making up stuff GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I have no weblinks, but plently of papers. However, similar to your thesis, that is my thesis. I have no place presenting it here or on the article. You can assume what you wish about my comments. You already seem to assume that highly respected professors are biased and should not be represented, and you and others have already removed those views at times and on multiple occasions. The fact remains, the views of scientists are highly relevant, especially in cases where you present pseudoscientific claims and argument. Regards HeadleyDown 11:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome based Research

Once again... this needs more info.. anyone want to fill in some more?

There are several quality outcome-based studies, which don't define which NLP processes are used or in what combination, but study NLP practitioners in real world situations (actual clients), to achieve a given outcome.

Of the 6 outcome based studies cited in Medline, all showed a significant positive effect for the NLP test cases. Other outcome based studies show similar support for the NLP processes as a whole. Studies show results such as more effective physical rehabilitation for patients, greater success in quitting smoking, positive effects on the home environment, reductions in social anxiety, and increased self actualisation.

These studies are criticised for their lack of controls and/or placebo treatment. Although positive changes were found in the NLP treatment, the research mostly leaves some room to attribute the changes to something other than NLP specifically (Eisner 2000). For instance, the change may have occurred over time anyway, or be related to subject expectations or some other aspect of the therapy (eg just meeting and talking).

The positive results, while not conclusive, have been noticed by the business and government sector, with endorsements for NLP training in police and law enforcement, many management and staff training programs, and by various health services.

Comments

Greg, there is no outcome based research that supercedes the empirical results of controlled pre-clinical experiments. You need to get back into those research tomes and start to look into issues of academic rigour. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, GregA!..... You do seem to be proposing all out war. Your suggestions go against every neutral editor including VoiceOfAll's suggestion that redundancy be reduced. Furthermore, your suggestion would lead to disputes on all of those articles plus the only way we could properly represent the arrangement is by presenting a 500 kb article of mostly negative articles and by stating "GregA states that these particular articles are really cool, but Drenth, Lilienfeld, Heap, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer and all the others have used their expert judgment to conclude that the evidence shows NLP is unsupported and/or ineffective or erroneously based and pseudoscientific and so on". I believe your suggestion will lead to long and difficult editing trouble plus all the flaming you could take. JPLogan 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Headley and JPLogan. Are you both saying you have no outcome based research that shows NLP to be ineffective? It is not our place to judge whether Outcome based research is applicable - there are certainly those who say it's the ONLY thing that matters, and there are empirical researchers who want to control all variables. Medline considered these studies to be valid. So back to the point - do you have ANY outcome based research counter-examples? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Pseudosciences

NLP is considered to be a pseudoscience by several authors. NLP has no central control. They see it as having an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, and linked to this an absence of self correction (practitioners will continue to use a process based on their own experience in preference to a psychological study). NLP has no scientific research program and approaches new processes quite differently to Psychology - the lack of a scientific research program within NLP is seen by some psychologists as a lack of connectivity with past studies to do systematic research, and also as an avoidance of peer review. The NLP community has criticised psychological research of NLP processes, and this is seen by some as NLP making ad hoc hypotheses, and a refusal to accept contrary evidence. The lack of apparent effort to research NLP processes is also seen as a reversed burden of proof.

Part of this is NLP's fundamentally different approach to psychology. Also, the lack of central control (or widely accepted standards bodies) within NLP means that when a process is changed, practitioners may not learn of the change. There is no academic community within NLP to encourage a research program, and the goals of NLP are quite different to Psychology. NLP may be a pseudoscience, or a new way of studying people (a protoscience), or it may not be a science at all.

Comments

Greg, there is a strong desire within the promotional editors such as yourself to skirt around issues of effectiveness (that has already been falsified). Your overall effort has been one of presenting your own thesis, rather than the views of academics who present the science surrounding NLP. I am happy with you writing as many of these essays as you like. If anything, it just shows how desperate you are. You want to take a simple scientific statement - (NLP is scientifically unsupported, or NLP has received no reliable evidence for effectiveness and so on, plus an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscientific) and turn it into a 1000 word essay in order for it to mean something else. The fact is, you are not working encyclopaedically. You are just trying to use wikipedia to promote your business. HeadleyDown 17:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a last quick reply I'm very short on time. We are discussing effectiveness.... you are skirting the issue. I would much rather present a review, I do not consider books on cults, skeptics dictionary, or pseudoscience to be unbiased reviews. This article has bloomed for many reasons - one thing I've noticed is an editor sees a NLP perspective mangled and doesn't want to delete since there are reverts, so they add an NLP perspective... it grows, repeats, gets changed. If you allowed an NLP perspective the article would shorten considerably - and I note you've just suggested that this week, almost identical to many other editor's suggestions (I know I said it too)... I agree. JP doesn't. Oh well. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding going on:

Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for an academic paper. It's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. We aren't trying to decide what is "true" and what isn't. To be honest, we don't care what "the truth" is, in that sense, because it's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views. It's more like the bibliography of a paper (listing all kinds of sources so long as they bear on the topic) than the paper and its conclusion itself. Every view of note is in there, represented neutrally. Theres no decision to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less common views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.

We care that we document each view fully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented the various more noteable multiple different views. Drawing conclusions from all of them is a use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopaedists.

FT2 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an erroeneous and objectionable view which does not reflect the content of artcicles on Misplaced Pages that are concerned with scientific matters. Consider Misplaced Pages's article on Earth. Coverage of "fruitcake" theories such as the earth being flat or hollow is reduced to a solitary sentence: 'In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth because of this'. Thus in an article of many hundreds of words, the view that the Earth is flat -- because it is unsupported by science -- is merely mentioned in passing. That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat (see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm), or that the Earth is hollow (see http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html), or that the earth was colonised by space aliens (see http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1). If what you were contending were true we would find the Misplaced Pages Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view. The Flat Earth Society's conception of the Earth as flat and the Hollow Earth advocates view that the Earth has a habitable hollow core would stand as peers to the scientific view that earth is spherical and solid. If your reading of Misplaced Pages policy is sound then it would be appropriate for you to explain the absence of pseudoscientific theories from the Earth article (for example). You aren't advocating Misplaced Pages policy but instead a post-modernist worldview with its associated epistemological relativism, eclecticism and the zealotry about not "privileging" one view above another. If your and FuelWagon's editorial intention -- which is dissociated from Misplaced Pages policy and content -- were fulfilled, the usefulness, reliability and credibility of Misplaced Pages would be severely damaged. A cursory survey of Misplaced Pages content makes it evident that Misplaced Pages does indeed privilege science above pseudoscience, superstition, speculation and conjecture. This is true irrespective of the quantity of people advocating a non-scientific view or the passion with which they advocate their non-scientfic views. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is empirically unsupported, theoretically unsound and pseudoscientific. flavius 02:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The reasons that flat earth is not heavily represented here is as best I can work out:

• It is not a widely held view

Neither is NLP relative to the worldwide population of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, linguists, philosophers, and computer scientists. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unlike psychology, it is a view that can be proven or disproven rather than opinioned.

Modern psychology is experimental psychology not armchair (or barstool in the case of Bandler and Grinder) theorising. Matters of psychology are no more "opinioned" than matters of geology. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless.

That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages privileges notable views, not just the one most notable view.

On matters of science (versus religion or aesthetics) there is only one notable view, namely that of the scientific community. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages describes each honestly in its own light, regardless of which one may be thought true.

"Fruit Loop" opinions are typically distinguished by a qualification that there is no evidence to support the view. They are not erected upon stilts and marched around in a surreal parade. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages lists evidence where appropriate but it does not advocate.

I see no demands for advocacy from the critical editors. The problem here appears to be that you would like the actual position of numerous prominent (and in some cases preeminent eg. Levelt) scientists regarding NLP censored or placed on equal footing with the baseless opinions of NLP promoters. This is perverse. The NLP article would achieve NPOV by reflecting the status of NLP amongst scientists and clinicians. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition,

• The word "objectionable" is personal opinion and not of value here.

No it isn't. In so far as your editorial intentions conflict with NPOV policy then they are objectionable. flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages has its own perspective. It's not post modern or relative. It's called NPOV and while you edit here, it's the water you and I both swim in. Read it carefully, again -- all of it. Especially the bits about writing for the enemy.
• Last, did you do as I suggested long ago and look up how genuine pseudosciences such as Homeopathy are represented in Misplaced Pages? I think you should. Try to understand why they are written as they are.

What of the Homeopathy article? How did you distinguish Homeopathy as a "genuine pseudoscience" and NLP -- by implication -- as non-genuine psuedoscience? Using what criteria? Drenth and Levelt both regard NLP as a pseudoscience. Don't you think Levelt -- the director of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholingusitics -- can distinguish genuine science from bunkum? flavius 03:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 03:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FT2, I think we should start talking about how people write on the article, rather than how they present their findings on the discussion page.

Perhaps I can give my own view on pseudoscience (for what its worth) Yes, genuine pseudosciences are treated exactly as they have been presented within science. Homeopathy is a really interesting one as it does have some close similarities with NLP (placebo and so on) and yet it is far less measurable by scientists. NLP, in contrast has undergone a lot more testing, and the conclusion was that for effectiveness sake, the US army (and it's director, plus the 14 or so profs who did the research) decided it was not effective. They rejected NLP as it is not effective. In line with providing explanation for pseudosciences, they did present other methods that were scientifically explained and showed efficacy. I believe that this article may be slightly better if chosen alternatives (by scientists) were presented. Anyway, NLP is more genuinely pseudo due to having more characteristics of pseudoscience, plus it has been well tested and has been falsified to an overwhelming level (Lilienfeld 2003) yet it is still promoted using scientific terms but in a grossly misleading way (Winkin 1991). We do have a duty (according to wikipedia) to briefly explain why there is a view that NLP is pseudoscientific. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as presentation goes, stating that "Scientists such as Smith, Jones and 30 others said ......." seems to be doable, as long as you are willing to apply that format to the rest of the article. HeadleyDown 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I'm going to point you one last time to WP:NPOV. Specifically to the very first section:

"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy."

"It says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."

Read that and think about it. You, and flavius, and Logan, and everyone else involved. Here, on Misplaced Pages, you learn to edit neutrally rather than advocating, and thats a bottom line. That is the definition of wikipedia "neutral". You are a scientist. You understand the concept "laws of nature". On wikipedia, NPOV is a law of nature. Laws of nature are ignored at one's own risk, since they do not stop existing and impacting you just because you think they should be different.

Let me apply this directly and impersonally to your situation and editing. You probably see yourself equivalent to a scientist pushing back misinformation. I see you as equivalent to a a man who goes to an airport and shouts "I've got a bomb" and is confused why you get to play the follow-up by police rules (prison, fine etc) ratheer than yours (treat as a joke). An NLP practitioner like Greg would probably see you as someone stuck in 1st position. All three of these views probably have some truth to them. As with the rest of wikipedia, I am not advocating any. I'm describing the various views that seem to exist, characterizing the debate, and letting the facts speak for themselves. Some facts that are speaking right now are, that you find yourself unaccountably referred by more experienced wikipedians to Arbcom. FT2 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK FT2. Some really highly experienced wikipedians who are totally in agreement with our highly rational mediator make absolutely no personal attacks towards me ever, and who never gang up with editors who spend months blanket removing all nonproNLP facts or recruit vandals, and have never ever done any selective editing, who know everything there is to know about NLP research, and never post their own views on the article, and who have never spent any time trying to post their own work, and who never remove negative facts from the article, and who are in no way hypocritical, have told me to look at the NPOV page again:) Now it is time for me to ask you; Can you answer my question? Do you have any comments regarding you being allowed to write about NLP in its own main section without any criticism whatsoever? HeadleyDown 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad its the last time, FT2. I have had so many irate pointings towards the NPOV page, or pointing out edits I made during mass NLP censorship sessions as if the whole thing were completely my fault:) I and others have made some suggestions to help this neutrality process along, specifically regarding giving you room to represent NLP without early criticisms. Any comments? Regards HeadleyDown 17:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one comment. At least one other user (GregA) has stated: "In general I have no problem with what Headley et al says he'll do - they often seem very reasonable. His actions are quite different". . Take a moment and ask yourself, why you imagine wikipedians keep pointing you to WP:NPOV in this manner? FT2 17:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Presentation of Criticism

I was looking through the reviews of research again, and noticed that the scientific papers are really very critical of NLP. They use words such as - cult, banal, fad, trite, infantile (they use these in a neutral "citation" fashion) in addition to their findings that the results show prior studies were simply a statistical illusion, and can be explained by factors other than NLP, and so on.

Anyway as those papers are so damningly critical, it does seem to be a bit of a nonsense to have 2 criticism sections. I think it was GregA who said, why don't we change the criticism section to "more criticisms". That is a valid point. I notice also that a lot of other pseudoscience articles have the same format. - criticisms, the overall scientific findings, and further ramifications of the pseudoscience with critique from other sources.

Clearly that would also put the pseudoscience section within the criticism section also.

This would solve a great many problems and be beneficial for both scientists and proNLPers. It would also be both "sides" complying cooperatively with VoiceOfAll's recommendations;

• the scientific results should show less redundancy in the article
• the NLP can have more chance to show it's promotion without the science dismissing NLP immediately.

It would also be easier to briefly add more research (without the constant reverts) within that whole seperate criticism section. Additionally, the proNLPers would benefit from a good deal of primacy within the article to explain NLP using NLP terms (which are on the whole promotional terms). Yet, the scientists would be able to make the appropriate scientific clarifications within the criticism section just as in other similar articles.

From a reader perspective, I know there are a lot of NLP fans who want to look up NLP. It would be presented in its own top section so as not to shake the NLP fan's beliefs or views (they can simply ignore the criticism section). NLP fans look down on criticism in general because they are generally new agers. The scientific minded would be able to check out the actual scientific findings for themselves out of sight in the lower section.

This would lead to NLP being presented much more fairly, and brevifying would be far easier for all.

VoiceOfAll, would there be any other benefits you could envision with this arrangement? Regards HeadleyDown 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

JP's response

Well, now that the antiNPOV accusations have died down somewhat, it is time to assess recommendations.

Firstly here are my objections to Headley's suggestion.

• Science should get priority here. I don't really care how other articles are presented, the fact is, NLP is largely pseudoscience, and significant authors state that NLP is fully pseudoscience. Therefore, I find it extremely offensive to have NLP described in vague and woolly pseudoscientific salespitch terms as it is in the opening and the first part of the article. Science comes first and that is the clearest way to describe and define NLP.
• If any section on the article needs reduction and brevifying, it is the NLP promotion sections. They babble like dirty water down the drain.
• All NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied should be highlighted in a way as to show they are erroneously termed from the outset.

Here is reality though:

• There is no way NLP promoters are going to term NLP in a scientific way. They will constantly resist science or play dumb just as they have always done.
• Other wikipedia articles have been presented with the pseudoscience claims first, and with scientific explanations afterwards. I blame the editors for not being strong enough in sticking to their guns and using NPOV policy properly. That negative trend will probably continue on this article.

Therefore, I believe we will just have to put up with wikipedia convention (as distinct from NPOV policy) and give a couple of paragraphs to NLP claims, and a paragraph of brief explanation and criticism from the skeptical/critical science perspective. Then allow NLP promoters to present NLP with whatever claims they like as long as they are presented within a reasonable format (as close to NPOV policy as possible). Then contain the findings of science within the criticisms section just has been done according to wikipedia convention on other similar articles.

I do feel that this is completely unfair to scientists who have spent time and funding in order to successfuly falsify NLP according to scientific rigor. It is also unfair to the more neutral editors here who have presented science and wide world views of NLP with the general conclusion that it does not work. Whereas, proNLPers have constantly striven for NLP to be restricted to their own POV. Fairness is perhaps less important now though, as a solution is needed. You can guarantee this article will be subject to more attacks from fanatics in future. If those deletions are restricted to a particular section, then they are easier to deal with. Equally, if people write "NLP promoters are scum of the earth" on the proNLP section, then that also can be dealt with more easily when the conventional arrangement is followed.

One very big benefit that I see from that practical arrangement is that it should help the mediator and his requirement that people stop spreading edits to multiple sections. It will be less likely to happen when criticisms are kept within their own section, and NLP claims are kept as a starting point. So there are things I don't like about it, but practicality definitely comes first now. I want this article to look more encyclopedic and I definitely want the file size closer to recommended levels fairly pronto. Its all possible if we find a way to avoid the war of attrition that has occurred and that threatens to continue for months. The most realistic way for a long term arrangement to work is to follow wikipedia convention. JPLogan 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

JPLogan, What do you mean by NLP terms that have been unscientifically applied? Do you mean scientific terms that NLP has applied incorrectly (unscientifically)? If so I think these should be made clear in a section (under science or criticism, whatever). Particularly common NLP terms (uncommon terms aren't necessary?). What terms do you have in mind. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK JP--- I see where you are coming from. I think your perspective may be more in alignment with Flavius' than mine. However, I do think that the views of science you and Flavius have noted can be well represented in the criticism/science sections as they are both scientific and both well supported in the literature. There are plenty of scientific references building up that we still havn't added that state NLP is daft and dangerous, or is a desctructive cult. I dare say we could even find evidence of the term "fruit loop" somewhere:) and even make a neutral presentation of that view. But lets put that stuff aside for now and focus on containing the problems, reducing redundancy, and as you say... being practically conventional. More neutral editors have shown a lot of tolerance towards the proNLPers' attacks over the months, as is evident in the rather foggy presentation of NLP indefinitions in the opening and the months of unreasonable deletions, and I'm sure we can tolerate it for a while longer while we get the article back into stablizing and concise shape. Regards HeadleyDown 09:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, I daresay you could find evidence of any term you want. And we could find evidence of anything we wanted. The challenge is to represent what's actually said, believed, etc - and to use the best quality of sources we can find for that representation... I'm surprised you think you could use "Fruit loop" do describe NLP neutrally...? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Informing the public; Cults and NLP consumption

Yes perhaps on the right track Headley although I disagree with being able to quote a scientist evaluation of NLP as being Daft, or fruit loop it sounds more like a personal representation than a scientific argument or explanation. What I am concerned with is that people (the general public) wanting to know about NLP or happen across the page will come away none the wiser as to the reasonning of the accusations of NLP being "Daft" or "Fruit loop". After all where does the scientist criticism stop and the personal criticism begin? Daft and Fruit Loop dont sound very scientific to me and lack vital information. I'd rather the public were informed. As for being dangerous or being a destructive cult that would contradict your research which says NLP is inneffective. How could it be dangerous if it is inneffective? Clarity of defining which group of scientists said what and seperating them because they are clearly two seperate points of view would clarify that, and be more NPOV, letting the general public know that scientists are divided on the subject and not all comments on the page are a scientific general view. Justin.

Hi Justin. Terms and phrases such as daft and "Fruit Loop" should be confined to the discussion unless they are used by a reviewing scientist (which is highly unlikely so you need not worry). As for the tension beteween danger/ineffective, this is more apparent than real. NLP has been characterised as a destructive cult by some scientists not because it gives the "cult leader" some supernatural power over his/her subjects via the application of banal NLP techniques but rather because it exploits vulnerable individuals, charging exhorbitant amounts for worthless training (that does nothing more than make one a member of the NLP granfalloon), it prevents people from seeking professional help from psychologists and psychiatrists, it produces a dependence between the NLP "guru" and the "disciple" such that the "disciples" mental health actually deteriorates (as a consequence of the dependence) and the "disciple" returns for more and more seminars. The techniques used by NLP cult leaders are not peculiar to NLP cult leaders nor even predicated on NLP, they predate NLP (see Robert Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"). NLP cult mind control techniques are non-NLP for two principal reasons: (i) if they were were NLP techniques they would be ineffective; and (ii) the shrewd NLP cult leader knows better than to reveal the tecgiques (s)he is using to produce blind obedience, dedication and slavish dependence in his/her subjects. I'll see to producing some references regarding the cult aspects of some schools of NLP. flavius 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, There are no "NLP cult leaders", the very term is biased. And you imply someone says NLP gives a cult leader supernatural power? Where do you get this? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are NLP cult leaders. Richard Bandler, Carmine Baffa, Tad James and Kenrick Cleveland are cult leader-like if not outright cult leaders. These cult leaders claim to have supernatural power. I have heard on more than one occassion Bandler claim he can induce a phobia in someone and that he's actually done that. Carmine Baffa runs off at the mouth and pen about his supernatural abilities:

Now there are many things that I can do, fly an airplane, build electronic systems from scratch, design and build jewelry from scratch, run a machine shop, use my communication skills to help anybody change any behavior quickly, effectively keep track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them, I can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures. (http://carmine.net/articles/genius/IQHypnosisandGeniu.htm)

Flying an airplane doesn't sound "supernatural" to me. Either he can or he can't, but if he can, it isn't a supernatural act. I will ask that you stick to quoting criticism rather than paraphrasing into your own words, because your own words usually qualify as original research. i.e. unless the word "supernatural" is in the quote, you can't put it in your paraphrased version. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are now assuming a contradictory position reflexively and on principal (as if this demonstrates your purported neutrality). Is Baffa's claim about "effectively keep track of the multiple levels of communication coming at me from -- up to 100 people -- inside of a group -- while effectively tracking how my communication is being received by each and every one or them" not supernatural? Baffa claims he "can explain and perform over a hundred different medical surgical procedures". He hasn't actually performed any surgery yet he somehow claims he can perform it. Would this not be a supernatural ability equivalent to some sort of sci-fi skill implantation? Furthermore this is a discussion not the body of the article so I'm not certain what the relevance of your injunctions and admonitions are. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tad James claims to be a "Kahuna" and has assumed the traditional adornments of a Kahuna as well as a Kahuna title (http://www.cancerlynx.com/huna.html, http://www.nlp.com/Huna_Chapter1.pdf). Kenrick Cleveland claims in his "Advanced Hypnosis" tape set that using his NLP(?) skills he can evade detection by traffic police even when speeding by imagining a missile filled with bad feeling (IIRC) being launched from his vehicle and striking the police car ahead. Kenrick Cleveland is also a high-priest in Santeria. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "NLP cult leaders" is biased, it presupposes that NLP is a cult, NLP processes can certainly be applied in cults, that's irrelevant. There are some POVs that NLP is a cult. Anyway I don't know Baffa and I would doubt his claims - but his claims aren't supernatural, just highly complex and certainly beyond most people. Which claim did you think was supernatural? As for Tad - Kahuna means "wise man"....? oh.. I see it includes spiritual in the meaning... yeah it doesn't belong in NLP (though he doesn't call it NLP, he teaches it separately afaik). Cleveland sounds weird - who's he and how does he relate to NLP? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Baffa, his claim that he can effectively track the concurrent communications of 100 people and that he has somehow perform over 100 surgical procuedures even though he hasn't actually ever performed surgery (which implies some sort of direct to brain/muscle skill stransfer) are both supernatural. Regarding Tad James, his NLP instruction is tinged with his New Age concerns. If you attend an NLP training from someone that appends "Kiaina'auaomaikalani" to his name (to demonstrate his Huna lineage) and wears a floral necklace and other Huna accoutrements then it is to be expected that his Kahuna teaching will find there way into his NLP seminars. Regarding Kenrick Cleveland, he's from the Bandler school of NLP and made his money teaching NLP-based persuasion courses. He's well-known amongst North American Bandler NLPers. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Remember that NLP was developed at a time when Scientology and EST were making people into gurus and multimillionaires. It uses the same marketing formulas and methods that are instilled into the very words and obscurantisms of NLP. It doesn't mean that NLP is effective, but it does show that NLP has adopted some very dubious and unethical social psychology tricks to get people to behave themselves while the gurus sell them their potions.

Dianetics is ineffective and just as ineffective and pseudoscientific as NLP, yet it is still used in cults in a dangerous or harmful way.

So what you're admitting here is that Dianetics and NLP has some sort of psychological influence. Justin

Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine. Urine drinking is just the same kind of leap of faith as firewalking, and within cults it is useful to control people. It is also just as pseudoscientific and potentially dangerous as NLP. If someone starts to dissent, you can publicly accuse them of dubious behaviour (Drinking pee).

I listened to a Bandler CD from the library the other day (seminar form) and he uses a lot of highly dubious methods dressed up as "provokative therapy". In fact provocative is synonymous with aggressive or attack therapy. He swears and uses expletives throughout. This is a method often used in cults in order to dissuade questioning or dissent from the crowd. Nobody will question him because they are going to assume he will tear them appart or hex them with his magic persuasion. The social pressure is enormously strong in these situations.

Bandler also uses quasi-religious overtones. He states "Thou shalt not steal" when trying to dissuade people from using NLP for their own financial gain. So his audience is warned off teaching NLP to others. He backs this up with trying to sue people. The Scientologists use this method throughout their own organization also. In fact some NLP fans have accused Bandler of acting just like Scientology in his restriction of freedom. Of course he has no right to NLP intellectual property at all in those situations.

So, if my employer requires that I sign a non-disclosure agreement before they'll hire me, and they will sue me if I go to another company and pass along what I know, does that make my company a cult? Your methods of criticizing NLP have nothing to do with science and everything to do with anecdotal evidence. If Pat Robertson says on TV that "Thou shalt not steal" is he "quasi religious"? Clearly, everything you are saying here is original research based on your own personal anecdotal evidence. If you were criticizing christianity, you'd be talking about how Eric Rudolph is christian and used christian arguments to bomb multiple abortion clinics and justify killing people. That's anecdotal evidence. Rather than damn christianity based on some fringe knucklehead, how about looking at the core of christianity. What do the founders of NLP say about NLP, rather than ranting about what some witchdoctor-on-tape says about NLP for $9.95. FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. I understand what you are saying. I do think that we are trying to make sense of this whole subject though while walking the tightrope. Remember that you have changed sentences that were originally quotes, but you decided to make them your own (perhaps inadvertently). This whole article is not easy to handle. Concerning core: Remember that originally B and G wrote the structure of magic as a way to be a theraputic wizard. They may have been metaphoric to some extent, but they did also talk about eyes and brain right and left, and photographic memory, and quite a lot of remote views. Regards HeadleyDown 16:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon. You are fragmenting an argument and constructing straw men from the shards which you are then processing to despatch with aplomb. Bandler has triumphalist music played when he enters stage at some of his Western European seminars -- he expects to be greeted like a cult leader. I've listened to many Bandler seminars and have heard Bandler repeat all sorts of New Age and Crowley Magick doctrine. Bandler -- not unlike a witchdoctor which claims (s)he can place hexes on enemies -- claims he can give someone a phobia. The cover art of Frogs, Magic, and Tranceformations is distinctively New Age and the metaphors of the wizard and magical change recur in the early Bandler and Grinder seminars. Carlos Castaneda -- a seminal New Age writer -- was a major influence on B&G (especially Grinder) during th time when NLP was being formulated. One of the Magic volumes (I don't have it with me) contains a lengthy quotation from one of Carlos Castaneda's writings. flavius 00:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So yes, even at its core, NLP proponents are using highly dubious and extreme cult characteristics and techniques in order to control things for their own benefit. Many other cults have also used the techniques in this way, plus the very new age aspects of NLP in order to do what scientologists do (claim you have enormous resources and can do the impossible and charge lots of money while providing ineffective solutions under conditions of social pressure) ATB AliceDeGrey 04:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

again, taking the worst of some topic and using it to condemn the whole concept. Do the main developers of NLP advocate drinking urine? Or is this simply yet another example of Eric Rudolph? FuelWagon 14:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice, Would you be able to give any references to your accusations against Bandler.. what CD?. I've personally heard some bad things about Bandler that I believe, but your exagerrations suprise me. And "Cults also mix NLP with other therapies such as drinking urine."... I'm amazed you think this is even remotely relevant... "urine drinking is as pseudoscientific as NLP"... GregA

"Bandler Doing Bandler" is one such example. It from the mid-80s (IIRC) when Bandler was still using cocaine. Between his constant nose sniffing (which he tells his audience is due to an allergy -- yeah right) he swears profusely, antagonizes his audience, tells all manner of apocryphal stories and bold lies. flavius 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard it, I appreciate you giving a name though. So lots of accusations against bandler. To stay on track here - would you care to show ANY relevance to Alice relating NLP and urine drinking? GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI "Bandler Doing Bandler" is subtitled "An NLP Perspective on Ericksonian Hypnosis" (IIRC). Bandler's NeuroHypnotic Repatterning (which is just old wine in new bottles that Bandler could trademark) tape set is also quite "instructive". I'm suprised that someone that has decided to fly the NLP flag is unfamiliar with Bandler's body of work. I'll allow Alice to explain her post. The relevance of the urine drinking -- as I understand it -- is that it is an act of commitment that prompts subsequent behavioural consistency and alters self-identity in such a way that adherence to the "cult" is reinforced. If you spent 10 years and tens of thousands of dollars on NLP seminars and have made NLP a part of (or perhaps the totality of) your world-view discovering that it doesn't work will not necessarily cause you to exit the NLP granfalloon. The cost -- in terms of dollars, time, cognitive dissonance and self-identity -- may be too great, making it easier to stay (see Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion). Thus if you have drunk the bath water of Asahara Shoko (Aum Shinrikyo see http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aums.html and http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/AumShinrikyo.cfm) for example, there is a good reason to continue beliving he is god incarnate, otherwise the consequences are personally devastating. flavius 00:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Correction: "Bandler doing Bandler" is subtitled: Hypnosis and Submodalities. Notice that this is not core NLP, but an application NLP patterns. NHR is also not NLP. They are both influenced by NLP. Bandler does recommend people read Cialdini's book on this web site. All that stuff about cults is not relevant. --Comaze 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It IS interesting that you say Bandler sues people, and so do Scientologists.... and that NLP fans consider them to be similar based on this restriction of freedom? That's a pretty loose reason to associate 2 things together... stronger than both groups speaking English, but really... your bias is extreme. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bandler's troubled existence is well documented (see Richard Bandler). I have one of Bandler's DHE seminars on CD and at many times it descends into pure New Age bunkum. For example, Bandler alludes to the Akashic record and he claims he can attain telescopic vision by "hallucinating" a pair of binoculars. Also John Grinder sprinkles his seminars with references to Carlos Castaneda. flavius 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, you are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content (structure and story). --Comaze 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What yourself what Bateson-NLP patterns have been identified by Grinder in Castenda, a few examples to get you started... Bateson's Multiple descriptions (see Whispering), Erickson's Double inductions (see Transformations p.83), what else? --Comaze 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just deleted a paragraph of my response... since you still didn't address your association of "Bandler sues people, scientologists sue people, therefore Bandler is a scientologist"... you've just brought up more claims without addressing the first ones which I was replying to.

Don't get me wrong... it's a great strategy for confusing stuff... it is just useless. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I listened to one of his tapes a while back, and Bandler talks about the ultrasonic or whatever background he uses. He actually said that he recorded the sound of cheering and overlaid the sound with the frequency of an orgasm:) This is really quite wierd. Now I don't know the frequency of his orgasm, but I don't see how it can be a constant.

There are also some parts of Bandler's audio that are supposed to talk directly to the subconscious and result in effortless learning. Now this is something to be explored, as there is just about zero evidence for practical effortless subconscious learning. This is similar to superlearning or suggestopedia or sleep learning that went on in the 70s and simply did not work. I will do my best to present the research on that one. I remember now that there was some criticism on this point. Regards HeadleyDown 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, What you describe here is NOT NLP. You are failing to make the distinction between pattern and content. --Comaze 12:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The following pages are illuminating (Warning: Both of these are thick with psychobable):

http://nlpschedule.com/reviews/rb-la-97-1.html

http://www.paulmckenna.com/article19.htm

The first makes it plain that Bandler's teaching of NLP incorporates elements of Crowley's Magick and other New Age themes. It also makes reference to Bandler's process of "unconcious installation" in which he magically installs complex skills directly into the "unconscious mind" of his students. The second devotes much space to explaining the wonders of "Accelerated Unconscious Installation"(TM-of course) and how it makes it possible to condense 21 days of training in 7 days (with better outcomes!). flavius 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No Comaze. NLP talks of speaking directly to the unconscious. So far, even hypnotherapists say that is pseudoscience. And to claim effortless learning is also against the nature of learning according to more than one theory of learning. These criticisms have been made by more people than me. HeadleyDown 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and none of this addresses my response to flavius which related NLP to scientology based on Bandler suing people. Anyway, yeah, unconscious learning probably has a place in the article.... NLP is a big field. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA. I think you are confusing me with AliceDeGrey. Alice posted the rematrk about urine and about litigation and Scientology. Your uptime anchor may not be firing ;-) flavius 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should remind people, this is a discussion page. We can be speculative. Part of the reason for this is corroboration, and for sense making, and for verification as a reality check. There has been quite a lot of accusation of bias from proNLPers towards the language of nonproNLPers. I have noticed that the language of nonproNLPers is consistent with that of the scientific papers that review NLP. They use words such as flake, fad, cult, psychopablum, pseudoscience, and so on, as do we. We are only reflecting what science is saying. Of course it will be offensive to proNLPers, but we should not shy away from offensive material on Misplaced Pages. Stand back and realize why Drenth and others have been so critical. The fact is, the books are incriminating enough in terms of pseudoscience. But what goes on in seminars, meetings, therapies, audio recordings and such is far more damning. This does rather support the fact that the scientific reviewers, and the journalists, and even the bloggers, are being quite fair and neutral about NLP when they make their criticisms. Regards HeadleyDown 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My response (OK its me DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

Yo Headley. It sounds much more reasonable the way you tell it:) I think this'll give everyone a better chance for all to completely assess what each other writes. The chances are, we will be better able to judge the sections for what they are. Actually one think I read on the NPOV page the last time I read it (about 2million years BC) was that it doesn't matter so much if an article looks like total propaganda. Deletion isn't necessary, but balancing with science will help. So we can always keep it balanced. I think that is fair. Anyway, that looks like another benefit. Is it me or do the proNLPers seem to be deliberately ignoring this point? DaveRight 02:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallo again. I reckon you are right about the reader's view. It doesn't matter whether its a flake or a scientist, whoever reads the current page is going to be phased by having "science that shows NLP doesn't work, Claims to science (as if NLP is really doing its best job to be fraudulent, and then the pseudoscience section. A reader'll look at those three as if they are a big boot up the arse for NLP. And then come the criticisms! Wierd! This'll also be made worse if you have actually read other similar articles, who do actually put all the criticisms (including science) into a single section. Thats confusing AND inconsistent. I also reckon we could take those 3 sections, put them into the criticisms section and cut them down to about a couple of paras each while applying them properly to the criticisms without any extra underlining, repeating, or undue emphasis or reiterations that make the proNLPers so sleepless at night tossing and turning and gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair as they do. This should work well. I still think the best thing will be the lower section is generally out of sight. Most flakes will be blinkered towards the shining example of post-modernist psychotechnololgy in the above section, that they will not even notice the criticisms section. Or they'll just see the word "criticisms" and go "Yuk! What a bunch of skeptical uncool and heavy negative looooosers"(Just as some of Greg's recruits did:) and they'll just turn their noses up and drift off on their righteously mellow way. Cheers DaveRight 02:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave - you're calling NLP supporters "Most flakes ..."? Mentioning Headley's allegations of my "recruiting?. It's a good thing we don't do personal attacks. GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Dave, it does seem to be a reasonable arrangement. I also rankle at the thought that NLP gets primacy, but needs must when the devil keeps deleting science just because a couple of words are out of place. Basically, allow NLP to have it's say and then put the concise section on science within criticisms to explain the criticisms for the sake of clarity and to keep all the nasties in one section. AliceDeGrey 03:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave... The bias increases! Are you saying we are "devils"? GregA 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greg. You are calling Alice Dave, and really I think you have accused far too many people of bias when in fact they seem to be explaining their points pretty constructively and clearly. HeadleyDown 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Each accusation of bias is specifically stated,

., it's a pity the replies don't address them. I don't care who I'm accusing, each made some pretty strong assertions and presuppositions. The points are one thing, the implicit messages are biased. Though yes I called Alice Dave in the last paragraph - sorry Alice, sorry Dave. GregA 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. I must say, you have often provided hope that we can work together, no matter what you have done previously. Like a lot of people are saying, the fact remains, there must be some kind of cooperation. You have provided the most honest and authentic voice amongsts the proNLP team, in a way that distinguishes you from the others. I expect no compromise from you. The fact is, NLP perspective is different from scientific or clinical psychology perspective. This can work. Your devotion to the science is a sign of your persistance. There is no hope of finding NLP scientifically supported, though I understand your persistance. However, your willingness to represent editor's views honestly puts you in quite a position of power. Like I said, you are in a position to voice the views of NLP proponents, and you have the credentials. What I would like to do is give a full hearing to all sides. I realise it is impractical to discuss and disrupt a monologue full flow. It is time for science to listen and give full space to NLP in a prime position. Whatever science does afterwards will do it's best (according to my effort(I don't know about others)) to match and balance your view. Then, of course, you/you all will make adjustments, and I/we will make adjustments, and the dance will go on and refine itself until it stabilizes somehow. I believe this is a good way to go. I am open to suggestion, as I feel, are others. HeadleyDown 14:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, Just reading the article and it still lacks balance. The NLP section that describes processes does not state a true statement of intention. It is technical and the general public might not see it's purpose for being there. Could there be a section before the scientific and criticism sections that states that NLP is taught with the intention of improving the quality of life and self esteem of individuals and applied in business fields for optimum performance and gaining new skills etc...which is the nature of any therapeutic art or business training. A lot of the other stuff that is mentioned seems to be the misuse of NLP by individuals. Richard Bandler is not NLP Nor are some of the others that use NLP "Dubiously". I think this is NPOV NLP trainings generally do undertake this role and as so it is fact. Oh, And I'm hardly ripping my hair out Dave but thanks for the concern. Cheers everyone. Justin