Misplaced Pages

Um, I havn't seen anyone say NLP is total junk. Remember that cults work, as do charlatans. There is also this neat concept called misconception and misattribution in psychology. The one interesing thing about NLP is the claim to broaden one's perspective, but its actual effect doing the opposite. NLP offers rituals. Rituals involving imagery, eye movements, standing in magical circles, mirroring as a cause rather than an effect (it is the chameleon EFFECT in reality) and so on. So you learn NLP and do wierd things. FOr example, I read a hillarious account of a woman who went to see a NLP therapist and found him wierdly dressed in black, and all he did was copy her:). This is recommended in a large amount of NLP and done in an incredibly simplistic way. Research has even shown that mirroring reduces trust during experiments (80s NLP research). It is not trash, but it is great for making money out of gullible people, and it is superb for thinking your new improved map is actual reality. Cults use it because it encourages manipulation, and is full of confusing nonsense that is short term gratifying and ultimately wrong. It has been covered by business and training/ HR practitioners (eg I think Von Bergen wrote a great exemplar on that) and the conclusion is that it is ineffective, baseless, and the associations between its baseless concepts do not actually exist. It offers a quick fix and in general, any positive theraputic effect that it may have is placebo or completely not attributable to NLP at all. So it is indeed a useful entity of the new age. Great for gaining money for old rope.DaveRight 03:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the article. I think its ok to have a specific 2000s section. It needs some serious condensing though, and there are loads of stuff missing. For example Eisner 2000, Lilienfeld 2003, Carroll 2003, and many more people reiterating that NLP is pseudoscientific and scientifically baseless, ineffective and unsupported. Then there are quotable lines about it being daft and dangerous, banal, trite, fadish, an amoral psychocult and so on. The SHAM book is also a good entry for that section. There are some very funny passages about Bandler and Grinder being unable to negotiate their legal way out of a paper bag, and T Robbins promoting NLP for marriage and then getting divorced:). Should be fun!DaveRight 03:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 'some' NLPers combine uncritical topics with their applications of the subject. However, let it be noted that there is an effort to restore (or insert) some academic rigor into the field of NLP. Two universities are current researching NLP (Grinder-Bateson) epistemology and it uses; headed up by Tom Malloy (University of Utah) with Dynamic Systems Theory and Paul Tossey director of research project `Neuro-linguistic Programming: Theory and Applications for Teachers and Learners' (University of Surrey, School of Management). In Australia, there is a government accredited postgraduate qualification (333 hours fact-to-face contact hours) . On a lesser note, University of Southampton offers advice to students for study skills based on NLP , and The University of Sydney offers short introductory courses in Neuro-linguistic programming as part of their continuing education program . Some in the field are really trying to clean it up, and distinguish themselves from the flakes, short "practitioner" training, and New Agers. I realise this just one POV, but it is a valid one, and verifiable. --Comaze 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. In the UK, one researcher from Guildford Surrey teaches a single module and 1 eighth of it involves only some aspects of NLP. He has written a discussion paper saying it could be tested. We know it can, because it already has been:) I think he's a little slow off the mark! The same goes for the other institutions you mention including Portsmouth. Out of all the thousands of institutions in the world the weight of this view is tiny. And the research you mention makes no difference at all on the research that has been done already. More recently people have been dissasociating with NLP as much as they possibly can, and moving into other areas. Platt, Patrick Melvede and many more. Prof Carroll wrote his 2003 book with a view to warning undergraduate psychologists and business people about the misleading silliness of NLP and similar subjects. The world view on research into NLP? There was research, but since it is full of nonsense and empirically unsubstantiated, the research stream has dried up! Only a couple of hard core NLP devotees are researching and that is probably only because the funding body did't realise that its pseudoscience.AliceDeGrey 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The University of Glamorgan is another university that is currently researching NLP:

Hello Folks again. Just to keep the ball rolling, I have made changes to the 2000 section, removing excess claims and confusing jargon. Also backing up views using references. I'm certain it can be condensed more. ATBAliceDeGrey 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's far better. Your crackdown on hype is also a fine idea. Science is the clearest way forward here.JPLogan 10:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks far better to me. I will have a go at condensing it further. I am also coming to the conclusion that there are so many terms in NLP that are just designed to hype, that it really is hard to see the hype sometimes. I mean words like "embedded command" sounds really powerful, but the psychology I know just calls it a suggestion. Anyway, yes we seem to be getting somewhere.DaveRight 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Those French refs you gave are great. The French seriously don't like NLP. It is still in the process of being labeled a cult by the govt there. Also one of their professors says NLP is "a lot of blowing wind, but no result". He also says the authors are megalomaniac fraudsters (I guess he's been talking to the British Assoc of Psychologists:). He classes NLP as a cult or proto-religion. I think they treated dianetics the same way in the 70s. Now its just a cult, and scientology is the religion. Can anyone think of a good new religious name for NLP? How about The Church of New Rolling Wizdicks?DaveRight 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh behave!:) Yes there are more to come also. They seem to collaborate a lot. Some of the studies are very in depth meta analyses about NLP (according to the lit). I would say they generally belong in the scientific findings section, but they all seem to state pseudoscience also. Anyway, we can introduce them anytime.AliceDeGrey 06:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what the aim is (I think), and what Alice and Dave have reduced it to. It really misses the whole point now in their edit.

Anyway, I'm thinking, overall, "NLP 2000" (which I interpret to be "Modern NLP"... is that right?) - this should be what the article is all about. Anything not currently applicable is history. Oh, and changing it to "NLP 2000 Background" is a little stupid ... like "background to the present". GregA 08:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Grinder's contributions since 2000

This was also reverted without discussion. It simple states the movements Grinder in recent years. I think it is appropriate for the Recent developments section.... "With the publishing of Whispering in the Wind in 2001, John Grinder and his partner Carmen Bostic St Clair made explicit their intention to set up the field of Neuro-linguistic Programming as a legimate field of human endeavour. The working title, Red Tail math promises to further explicate the epistemology of NLP, including refinements of cybernetic epistemology of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) using discrete dynamical systems (Malloy et al 2005) and the inclusion of ecology and emergence (Malloy, Grinder, Bostic, 2005)." --Comaze 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

2 POVs

I wonder, with the 2 distinct POVs we have here, whether we should try something totally different. I don't think this is working at the moment. I have no idea what might work but if anyone can think of something... put it here? Voice-of-All might have a cool suggestion too, having been through this before.

One thing I'm thinking is that for EVERY section we could write 3 parts - start with agreed description, then to Group A, Group B. A would be the NPOV version ala Greg/Comaze/FT2/TBP/Andy/whoever. Then we have the NPOV version ala Headley/JP/DaveRight/Alice/whoever. I put my view first since sometimes there will be claims that headley's view will wish to respond to, it avoids duplication... though maybe that's not right. Anyway, over time, we find the commonalities and move them slowly to the Agreed section. We can also change our own section to account for quotes presented in the other section. BTW, I suggest we avoid naming groups "pro-NLP", "anti-NLP", "science", etc... since we're all claiming this is Neutral.

That idea mightn't work. At best it should be temporary. At the moment we just overwrite each other and I can't think of a way of representing clearly what both sides are saying in a way that will allow us to bring this together. Maybe someone has a better idea. Maybe some people prefer a mess. I don't know. Your thoughts? GregA 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

ps. There are many POVs of NLP... but I think in our situation we have 2 POVs of it all... pps. I'm not suggesting this as a "debate" (we're not presenting sides of an argument). I'm suggesting we both be as neutral as we can and back it up with evidence. GregA 07:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg and people. Actually I would have to disagree about the various POVs. I have taken a back seat for a while and I noticed that there are many distinct POVs in the promoter team, and a more or less agreed POV in the scientist/psychologist team. Seems to me because they choose a useful scientific perspective. Also, the article seems to be getting along fine also. At least, promoters are not removing cited facts 10 times a day each like they used to.Bookmain 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bookmain... I only have a second. Please note I'm not talking about POVs of NLP, but rather our distinct POVs here on this group. There is currently more and more low quality research mixed in with high quality stuff (Morgan is an example - but we can discuss him below). The article does not express what NLP claims, but rather what you want to say it claims - there is no point removing the unrepresentative, misframed, or unscientific stuff you're adding when you just re-add it. It's a broken record (I'm not saying it's all bad, just some). The only way to like the current situation would be if your goal was to present NLP as a mess... and I'm sure none of us want that. I'm suggesting 2 POVs as one way of at least presenting what we've found, and gradually bringing agreement together. I would welcome another option do you have one? GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Morgan

I don't know if anyone's actually read the articles. But for example given the citation of Morgan (1993), has anyone actually read Morgan's work? Its basically just a restatement of Heap. Morgan did not undertake any actual research into NLP whatsoever, according to his own writing.

Morgan states that NLP is unsupported. That is his view. It can be in the article.HeadleyDown 10:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Morgan did no research. He also uses and references NLP derived methodologies himself constantly, and advertizes himself as "Your number 1 hypnotherapy site!". His statement of what Heap said has as much use as if you or I or any lay-person merely reported Heap's view. It's certainly not academically founded or "research" and it has no standing except reflected standing of heap, who is already cited. Removing from article. TBP 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBP. I am getting tired of NLP promoters twisting the facts. Please learn to research properly.

Here is the Australian Hypnotherapists page version (copied from Dylan 1993) http://www.mindmotivations.com/article1-nlp-assessment.shtml

This is framed “A scientific assessment of NLP”

There is a conclusion section. Here is the conclusion:

Sorry headley but to be scientific is not as simple as labelling your study "a scientific assessment", and having a conclusion :)

Everything you write below is a true quote of the article. That is not the same as being 'true'. He cites heap, he does no research, it's his opinion piece (I'm unsure if it was published?). GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Morgan, Dylan A (1993). Scientific Assessment of NLP. Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register Spring 1993: -. Question answered.JPLogan 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

“The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees, following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions of everyday life. Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements.”

It states “and these conclustions”

On his own site Dylan Morgan states after the article:

“I know that some members of the NCP are enthusiastic users of NLP techniques and I would be interested to know their response to this article. On the other hand if you are a member who has tried to use the indirect ways of deducing a person's PRS andfailed, or have tried to pace the presumed PRS and not gained noticeably greater rapport than usual, then you may find comfort in the thought that the fault may not lie in you.

In my own experience a simple question such as, "When you say that do you mean that your actually picture .... to yourself?" is answered happily and openly by people, so that there is no need for devious, indirect or doubtful ways of finding out in detail how their minds are working.”

Dylan Morgan presents it as a Scientific Assessment. Then he infers that if NLP does not work, it is because NLP does not work. He is stating that NLP is:

“Devious, indirect, and doubtful” (Morgan 1993) Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register, Spring 1993. RegardsHeadleyDown 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you want to know Heap’s final word on NLP, believe me it is extremely damning and a harsh one indeed. He read Sharpley’s 1997 paper (that Heap had not taken into account for the prior 1988 report due to timing problems in publication (they take ages)) that irrefutably placed NLP as scientifically unsupported, and then said that NLP is indeed scientifically unsupported, and the conclusion is that NLP completely fails to qualify for clinical testing due to baseless theory, unsupported efficacy, and highly dubious promotion. (Heap 1989).

I assume you mean Sharpley 1987 (not 1997), which you have continually referred to here (and on the main page), but give no further information, study name, etc. You asked if I wanted more information a few weeks back I said an abstract would be great... come on - give the study name, journal at least, or stop referencing it. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Drenth, Levelt, Platt, Morgan, Lilienfeld, Eisner, Carroll, Singer, and many others follow this evidence and scientific thinking.HeadleyDown 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, remember what they wrote. Cult books, Pseudoscience books, skeptic dictionary. QUality independent sources? GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I also find it interesting - and not a little suspicious - that Morgan's own website, whose author is supposed (I gather) to be against most of NLP's findings, promotes himself as "The UKs No.1 hypnotherapy site" , and if you read his books, Morgan constantly uses Ericksonian Hypnotherapy techniques -- as modelled in NLP by Grinder and Bandler.

I'm also still waiting for your reply, HeadleyDown. NLP is not just "VAK" or "PRS". It is a methodology, and an approach, which has spawned models empirically. Your approach is unscientific. I've asked you to consider my question, five times now. I did so for a very good reason: basic NLP epistemology and models have been widely enough used that it becomes possible to say "in the hands of skilled practitioners, they work". Whether the theoretical explanation of the creators is correct scientifically I don't know. But assorted NLP models are taken seriously and used in other fields. You seem ignorant of that. I think you need to address that aspect - and you should not need to be asked. TBP 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes TBP. and exactly what models are you referring to when you say that they are used in other fields? That certainly does need to be askedHeadleyDown 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi TBP. Also, it is not enough to say that "in the hands of skilled practitioners" because NLP is sold to the general public and hyped to ridiculous levels. Here is a good clarifying statement:

"pseudosciences are characterized by non-reproducable findings that are allegedly mediated by forces unmeasurable by scientific methods. Critics failure to validate these claims are frequently dismissed with the self-serving assertion that the results are obtainable only by those who share the pseudoscientists belief and arcane skill".

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. (Beyerstein 1995) in Sala et al 1999. Department of psychology Simon Frazer University Canada.

IN short, you seem to be alluding to some arcane skill that cannot be reproduced. But the seminars are so expensive and promise so much! I conclude from your statement that NLP is pseudoscientificHeadleyDown 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll write up a response to each pseudoscience claim - sometimes to question it, sometimes to agree. Lilienfield makes it quite clear that sciences sometimes do have pseudoscientific aspects and it's a natural part of the process - but when you get lots of the pseudoscience elements the line is not so blurry. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello TBP. Over the years, NLP has been studied empirically (because it can be tested) and overall it has been found lacking (false in theory, in associations of concepts, and in efficacy). The views of the scientists/psychotherapists/psycholinguists and HR practitioners in the article are that NLP is scientifically unsupported. I know there are subtle differences that NLPers will talk about and they will vary a lot. The science does not vary. The same scientists/psychotherapists/psycholinguists and HR practitioners also say that NLP is pseudoscientific partly because it is unsupported, but also because of other reasons, such as NLPers denying that science has any relevance (even though they claim science half the time and make hypotheses (if you do this, then that will happen).HeadleyDown 10:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are reasonable questions. Here are some answers for you. I'm sorry if they are a few lines long:

• As regards models that are widely used or respected in other fields, let us pick one example. I think thats a valid approach: If NLP methodology is shown to have validity or be empirically valued in one major case, it becomes difficult to sustain that it is "completely" pseudoscience or "snake oil". Here is one example. The work of Milton Erickson and his professional standing even posthumously, is not in doubt internationally (although interestingly during the 1950s he too was accused and professionally investigated for pseudoscience - and deemed cleared - by the medical profession). His work is the subject of ongoing study, and the foundation of much modern hypnotherapy. It is not considered pseudoscience so far as I am aware, by anybody of serious medical standing. I would have to look up my reference texts next time I'm home, but Erickson himself credited at one point, "I would like to thank Grinder and Bandler, who have explained my approach and methodology so much better than I could have done". This suggests that the classical, core NLP methodology, spawns models and information that have lasting value and insight, and which had not been up until that time identified by other schools of study. (Do you want a source for that?) That in turn conflicts fundamentally with your categorization as "complete pseudoscience".

Heap himself a hypnotherapist talks negatively about Erickson. He uses words such as "if empirical evidence is not used, then practitioners may fall foul of the Erickson/NLP cult".

And concernign NLP: original interest turned to dissolusionment after research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy.

Hypnotherapy : a handbook / edited by Michael Heap and Windy Dryden.(1991)HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your other point, I find off-target. Most disciplines require skill and practice, and many disciplines (mathematics, medicine, microchip design) are capable of producing results in the hands of knowledgeable experienced practitioners that lay-people cannot reproduce. To take an example, the fact that a thousand amateur mathematicians found Fermat's Last Theorem comprehensible and believed it accessible, and were incited to try and achieve a proof by prizes, and produced myriad flawed "proofs" in both amateurish and subtle ways, does not say anything about whether mathematics, or a proof of it, in skilled hands, are valid. So to argue that because NLP is hyped to the public, therefore it must be ineffective in the hands of a skilled experienced practitioner, is a logical fallacy.

That is not what I meant. I said NLP is hyped to the public, and says if you simply do this, then such and such magic will happen. In addition, the empirical tests on NLP included highly trained experimenters fully capable of conducting NLP.HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not according to Druckman, one of the flaws he gave was not using quality NLPers. How do you determine if your highly trained experimenters are capable of conducting NLP? I would have thought you'd be better off having a highly trained psychological researcher working with highly trained NLP practitioners, if you wanted validity. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your third point is misconceived. I have specifically indeed stated that core NLP is objectively verifiable by a third party. In other words, the use of good NLP, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, and the additional impact it can have in a therapeutic or other context, can be recorded, seen and discussed as a case example on video tape, and has been. Another test of its efficacy (though less so because of the placebo effect) is the client's perception of the impact of skilled NLP use, and that too can be tested. However the placebo effect is less likely to be a major factor, because by the nature of the field, good quality NLP can be retrospectively reviewed eg on video, and a commonsense connection discussed even by non-NLP practitioners between action and effect (unlike most pseudoscience). So I think it is a misunderstanding on your part. The skills are not arcane. They are skills which everyday people use daily, but which can be identified and then used very powerfully, rather than used haphazard and poorly as they are usually.

I did not say the skills were arcane. I am merely saying that you are saying the skills are unattainable and untestable by good rigorous and peer reviewed studies into NLP.HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• A final point, important to be aware of: It is not always certain which exact part of NLP may be critical, so practitioners as a rule use many methods combined and in parallel, so there is limited clarity which specific aspect of their work is "responsible". Probably all of them contribute to some degree. This is the most complex aspect of the "skillset". For example, a practitioner with even basic skill may be using combined and simultaneously:

Now we are back to wholism again. Pure pseudo thinkingHeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some psychologists argue that you have to isolate the variables entirely to be scientific. Even then, the hard sciences call it the soft science. Other psychologists (particularly those practicing forms of psychotherapy) argue that the variables can not be isolated so easily. I really don't think we should have that argument in the NLP area, but if it's nowhere else.... GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Crossmatching (as opposed to mirroring) in body movement or voice,
• Watching skin tone, micromuscle movement, and eye motions for unconscious responses or other potential nonverbal communications,
• Listening for critical metamodel or other recognized patterns,
• Forming precise hypotheses as to what might be important unconscious or unstated factors in the client's own behavior and ways of thinking, promising directions that will benefit the client therapeutically, or other neuro-linguistic patterns, and carefully testing these with the client's own observed and heard feedback as a guide,
• Structuring their own choice of language to keep the client exploring their own inner experience rather than "jarring" or moving away from productive internal discovery,
• Incorporating in their communication at the same time as all the above, specific techniques (examples: metamodel, milton model, reframing, dissociation, multiple points of view, time reorientation, metaphor) which for some clients facilitate the reduction of more difficult or established emotional or conceptual limitations and other problematic conceptual hinderances in the client's world-view and thus make more self-awareness available to the client,
• Ensuring that their entire language use avoids imposing their own preconceptions of what "must be" or how the world "is" in favor of working within the client's own viewpoint,
• Considering broader goals such as ensuring the client is considering unexpected consequences of his wishes to choose the best all-round outcome, ie that the impact on or influence of others involved is being duely considered by the client,
• Structuring their approach so that the work done is constructed in a way so as to be synergistic with existing belief if appropriate.....
• ... And these are all dynamic, thus at any moment an observation of client action or behavior may suggest a completely new approach or aspect to be checked out. It's said that good NLP should be 90% skilled information gathering (of client verbal and non-verbal communication), and only 10% action.

That's just the start of basic skill level for professional use of NLP, and it's a bit like driving a car or truck: good NLP is constant awareness, pure learned neutral observation, constant conscious and unconscious working with objectively verifiable feedback - and never quite predictable. That is classical NLP in action, and a lab test where an unskilled reader uses word type A rather than word type B and concludes that NLP is ineffective as a result, doesn't even start to come close. To be honest, it's a testing methodology I'd expect to be inappropriate.

TBP 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, it makes no difference what I think. With respectable scientists/linguists/psychotherapists/and management specialists stating that NLP is pseudoscience, because it is scientifically unsupported, and because of the kind of pseudoscientific arguments you have just put forward, plus the incredibly pseudoscientific arguments that others put forward, it is clearly pseudoscientific. These views carry great weight, especially next to the pseudoscientific views of those who have absolutely zero regard for verifying their own assertions, and go on with the infomercial as if they have the answers to everyone's problems and the key to the universe. So we are back to scientology again!HeadleyDown 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it makes a difference what you think. You are looking up articles to support your theory. It SHOULDN'T make a difference, but if that were so we'd be discussing things entirely differently and not quoting some of the more dubious sources (the good sources should be good enough for the article). Remember we are not saying that there are not some clearly pseudoscientific arguments put forward by some people - we are saying that the majority of NLP practitioners do not (which is entirely different). Your generalisation that NLP claims to have an answer to everyone's problem is sad and unrepresentative. Also no matter what you said previously, where do you get "back to scientology".... you're implying a link that's not there at all. GregA 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And again you appear to willfully misread my words.

• Erickson: First, the question is, is Erickson's work snake oil? I think you'd have a hard time selling that view. Note that Heap is not referencing Erickson's work so much as the cult-like following it attracted. Erickson himself was a clinician of international standing and recognition in his lifetime, and his work has been clinically deemed to be significant. Citations available if needed. Or see the article on his life and work for more. Unless you want to present a case (despite the evidence) that Erickson's work has no validity, I think you have to acknowledge that Grinder and Bandlers methodology, analysis and models drawn from it, which he acknowledged were better than he himself could have done, were also significant.
• Fallacy: Your original statement was (summarized) "its not good enough to say genuine practitioners can achieve results, because it's hyped to the public too". That is a fallacy. Especially, I have never come across good quality NLP saying A will always cause B. It's always "this is a rule of thumb but always check it in each individual case".
• Arcane: 1st quote "In short, you seem to be alluding to some arcane skill that cannot be reproduced", 2nd quote "I did not say the skills were arcane". Make your mind up.
• Misreading: My comment: "core NLP is objectively verifiable by a third party... by the nature of the field, good quality NLP can be retrospectively reviewed eg on video, and a commonsense connection discussed even by non-NLP practitioners between action and effect (unlike most pseudoscience)". Your comment: "...you are saying the skills are unattainable and untestable by good rigorous and peer reviewed studies into NLP". Is it just me, or are you reading the exact opposite of my words?
• Wholism: No Headley, saying that a skill is complex and has many aspects, and it is not always clear in any one circumstance which may have been the critical one, is not wholism. Gods sake man, learn what these words mean. Wholism is saying that something cannot be understood analytically by examining its parts. I bullet pointed some 10 parts to look at, and observe that because it is multi-faceted in this way, it is more complex to design a good test for it, but that (as stated above) none the less, the parts and their impacts are objectively separable.

The problem with your viewpoint is, it is becoming more and more obvious that it is circular and POV: "NLP is pseudoscience, therefore any clinical evidence to the contrary must be unscientific and any statement suggesting objective verifiability can be safely ignored".

One of your "evidence" citations (Morgan) turns out to be using NLP and not to actually be any form of researcher at all, but merely a relayer of others research which was used to make it appear (incorrectly) there were two sets of conclusions. Another (Heap, 1988) you have selectively quoted to avoid disclosing his full view on NLP. His full comment even on the limited scope of matching, if you had read it, included:

"On the balance the findings have been negative but a number of positive outcomes have been reported, enough to suggest that there may be some beneficial effect of matching, perhaps not specific to predicates but to more general linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour, as indeed NLP writers themselves have suggested."

That's quite a far stretch from snake oil and complete pseudoscience.

Don’t ever, ever, quote scientific research that way, Headley, without checking sources, citing the critical caveats, and giving a neutral view of their findings. When I ask you to justify something, in a reasonable factual tone, I do not honestly expect dismissive hyperbole back.

TBP 12:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK TBP. So far I hear you telling me how to behave - ever ever! I see you removing fact (Morgan's contribution to his 1993 paper includes the words devious, indirect, dubious attributed to NLP). I see you wanting to misinterpret my own words towards your point of view. I see Heap is scathing of NLP, and his final words conclude that NLP is completely unsupported and do not even qualify for expensive clinical studies. People looking in will come to their own conclusions. I want to move on and focus on the cited facts.HeadleyDown 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify and simplify proceedings. Lets focus on baseline conclusions please. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic. It is not a work in itself so much as a report of findings of what NLP actually is and does, and science gets a lot of weight, especially in relation to the enormous amount of fog inducing commercial hype. Best regardsHeadleyDown 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You hear me saying several times that you need to answer questions not just assume you have the answers. To consider not condescend. To not take my words and then tell me I said the exact opposite or make up straw man responses. To not include a research source plus a published personal view on that source, and cite them claiming they are two different researches. Not to take research that includes important qualifiers that suggest those you think of as "opponents" are in fact not wholely rejected by those you think of as "scientists", and suppress it when it doesn't suit you.

Your call to "just focus on facts" and "baseline" and "encyclopediac" is one I support, but not in the same way you do. Your idea of these is "I don't want to be bothered with the possibility that there could be merit in both sides' views". You already know what you want the article to say, as witness your selective concept of "neutral reporting". A good call to "focus on facts" covers all facts, good "baseline conclusions" are not predetermined, and a good question right now would be "what is a balanced wiki-neutral view that fairly represents the other information too".

Yes, Headley. I am telling you how to behave. So is WP:NPOV, if you had read it. And so is the scientific method, if you hold any respect for it at all. I have indulged your bias and ignorance with courtesy and patience. I've asked you questions, and watched you quibble and throw up fallacious specious dismissals, and when answered ignore the question anyhow by effectively saying "Let's treat it as agreed and settled and I want to move on". It doesn't seem that you made any dedicated attempt to pursue NPOV by verifying whether there was in fact formal research or other academic papers contradicting your view or broadly supportive of the various NLP methodologies. Misplaced Pages is a co-operative venture, with the goal of representing what's known on topics, and – so far as NPOV is wikipedia policy – you need to learn to work within it, however much you might want it not to (or feel it shouldn't) apply to you.

TBP 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Really everyone. Stop with the pointless arguments. All mediation requests for citations and refs have been honoured in a very prompt manner, as far as I can see. Job done!JPLogan 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Platt

A Note from the peanut gallery....(please forgive the lack of formal Misplaced Pages formatting I just signed up the other day - I've been following this for a week or so now and I've noticed a tendency for the "antiNLP" group to consistantly ignore "ProNP" arguments. The only comment I can make on this (we all have our own viewpoint) is this example:

The Platt article is constantly cited throughout. Yet the article published in the same magazine the very next month as a reply by Susan Knight was never mentioned anywhere.

And for the record I am a Chemical Engineer, with a MS degree in Industrial Chemistry (so I know more about "science" than most). I also am an NLP Trainer (trained by Tad James) and hypnotherapist. User: JohnStrasser (john@lifetranscendent.com)

I agree John Strasser. Platt ref should be balanced with the reply, and given equal weight. Be bold, if there are no objections go ahead and make the change, by adding the Sue Knight reply to the references with a paraphrase or direct quote of her opinion. You can post here as a draft. --Comaze 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi JohnStrasser. Believe me a week is nothing here. I have had to put up with the same old argument and deletions of fact and twisted accusations for months. The arguments presented today are simply reiterated and oversized nagging that has been dealt with many times over. It will probably continue, but I don't care. The facts remain. Scientific views say that NLP is unsupported, pseudoscientific, and those views will be heard. The other info is about NLP devotees such as you saying that they don't like the facts. BTW Tad James is the remote influence ESP Huna guy isn't he? I believe he taught John LaTourrette, another remote influence guru in the US! I think that answers Greg's ESP question. RegardsHeadleyDown 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Headley... the "scientific views" say, when you do research that includes reviewing and summarizing other research in a field, you review both papers that show the view you incline to, and those which tend to support or suggest the opposing view, both, neutrally. I see no evidence you have dont this. Your view is nicely summarized, one couldn't summarize more honestly if one tried: "I don't care". But NPOV means caring and checking both sides... and reporting a balanced article on the field neutrally. I don't see that your logic or knowledge justifies a claim to be competent in the field to do that.

How hard exactly have you looked for scientists and science not concluding NLP is pseudoscience, or whose papers included indicators such as qualified interest, recommendations for further research in the light of suggestive but not conclusive results, or out and out positive findings? If you found any, shouldn't you include them? And if you didn't look properly, then by what right are you trying to say what NLP is or is not? TBP 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello I am Hans Antel an occupational psychologist

I studied NLP under Grinder's teachings. Luckilly for me and unlucky for my employer, I did not have to pay for the expensive study. I stayed open to the teachings and tried to apply them wherever I could during my job for months afterwards and found them to be lacking compared to the other techniques and applications that I had learned throughout my undergraduate training in traditional scientific methods. I also attended conference meetings with other NLP enthusiasts in Europe (especially France Denmark and Germany). I could still not get any real knowledge or effective technique from them, and they seemed to be very good at telling stories and explaining away their failures. I did make further studies and (well I knew already the theories were highly wrong because I have a Master degree in psychology), and I then found that the methods did mainly not work in experimental testing also. Regarding the engram term European NLP enthusiasts do find it useful and one of them explained to me that the word (as a nominalization) was useful for getting people to believe that words can make permanent changes in the brain. He said that engram was useful because it is convincing. I have also heard asian NLP enthusiasts talking using the engram term as central to neurology. Its a neurology word, so why not! I have also been watching this discussion and really NLP users do not have anything to add apart from stories. That is the way NLP has developed. Testing gives a very negative view and that is how my psychotherapy friends see NLP. Its actually turned out to be quite a comedy system of therapy, but not intentionally. I am grateful for the studies presented here, and I think Platt and I have a lot of experience in common. I also found the Von Bergen reference to be extremely useful. I wrote a report on NLP for publication at my local training authority and I also emailed it and other research to Alice De Grey. It is negative in conclusion, but the research is balanced according to the guidelines of my professional body.

If you like NLP, then fine for you! Just don't expect your stories or opinion to be published in an encyclopedia. Hans AntelHansAntel 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref Hans. To be fair though one should not conduct one's own work for wikipedia, it is about other views. To be sure though, the other information and the refs provided are really super (especially the mainland European ones) and will be very useful. ATBAliceDeGrey 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal research can be included in wikipedia as long as it is published by a reputable publisher or academic journals (for academic subjects). --Comaze 11:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. Alice forwarded me a copy of the euro references. Believe me, you do not want to go there:)HeadleyDown 12:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Morgan and Heap

I added "Morgan, 1993" to all areas the do not already have Heap.Voice of All 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)