Misplaced Pages

I can accept that, VoiceOfAll, though it is not as immediately clarifying as the previous. I do suggest a couple of word changes. Notice that "the study of structure of subjective etc" is considered an outrageous claim by more than a few scientists, and rather than belief about structure, it is more of an assumption. I will make the changes, see how it looks to you. Regards HeadleyDown 07:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I made more changes, and programming is still mentioned, it seems quite clear for now.Voice of All 07:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. I made some small adjustments also. Cheers HeadleyDown 08:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the intro is acceptable.JPLogan 09:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Headley, I see that the Mediator's view is not quite to be left alone as you have previously said. You just can't resist those little POV pushing touches, can you...

• VofA "It is promoted by NLP proponents as "the study of the structure of subjective experience" "

HD edit It is promoted by NLP proponents as "the structure of magic" and claimed to be "the study of the structure of subjective experience"

• VofA "NLP also provides techniques for programming the mind, so that such models can be used by others to emulate effective skills"

HD edit: NLP also provides techniques for programming one's own behavior or other people's behavior.

• VofA "It is formally defined"

HD It is promoted

• VofA "is predicated upon the belief"

FT2. I am willing to compromise here. I made some corrections to the opening, and I corrected myself also. I stated promoted as ..study of structure etc, but it was rather a claim than a promotion, so I placed NLP's most common promotion (structure of magic...the word magic is in the title of many books). HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot I placed the McDermott reference (not shown above) HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on these points. I see no problem here as I am more interested in completing this part and moving to the next. HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could hear VoiceOfAll's version. HeadleyDown 12:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We did. You instantly edited it, and the above lists your impact on it. A bit inappropriate to then talk about "hearing VofA's version"....? FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "Qualified NLP practitioners claim to be able to do more complex NLP change work"

HD Qualified NLP practitioners claim to be able to do more complex NLP change work (Eisner 2000). Although NLP is pseudoscientific , it is fair to say that many pseudoscientific subjects are promoted in psychotherapy, especially the fringe psychotheraputic practices

FT2. OK, I am being fair and compromising here. I can change it to Although NLP is classed by some experts as pseudoscientific....HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "in the eyes of many people"

HD in the eyes of previous supporters

FT2. Voice of all asked for the removal of "many" and I was cooperating. Si see no problem with my version and if you look up the reference, you will find it is correct. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see the benefit of removing weasel words. But "previous supporters" also implies all or most previous supporters, which is incorrect as opposed to merely unsecified. Can you find a citation to describe who exactly lost faith in it, or something? FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• HD Richard Bandler attempted legal action to claim the intellectual and commercial property of NLP although and as NLP did not work

FT2. Again, that is actually a direct reference to the book by Salerno. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, its nothing to do with the court case. if it is relevant to the article, find a place that it fits the article context. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "other reported states and abilities"

HD other dubious activities

My version fits well HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited to retain both, see if that works FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA "medical use"

HD "alternative" medicine

It's classed as alternative medicine sometimes. Certainly I don't see it being taught to doctors as part of their training. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It also gets medical use. Both is okay, deletion of that fact in favor of alternative, isn't. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• VofA " 'New age' or 'commercialized' NLP is increasingly targeted for saleability"

HD NLP is increasingly targeted for saleability

Reverted. Don't even think of POV warring this way. FT2 11:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, FT2, it does seem like you are telling me what to do. I have been cooperative. If you want to make changes do not simply revert. HeadleyDown 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2, these are all valid changes. I made those changes for the sake of the remaining issues to clear up. Please be more specific about your objections, because I see nothing wrong with them. HeadleyDown 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

See way above, you asked if I was telling you what to do. When it comes to content in general, no, all sides must be represented. When it comes to comprehension and clear persistent and aggressive boundary pushing on core wikipedia policies such as NPOV, yes. Specific criticisms are given above in each case, read 'em, or ask for a re-post of them, either is okay. FT2 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have re-reverted the deletion of the Sharpley quote. I find it interesting that it's okay to include Sharpley's criticism, but not the other half of his research conclusion, and that it's okay to include 3 sources heavily critical without one research that isn't. I also find it interesting that you ask for explanation, and I tell you where it is and offer to repost it if you can't find it, but then you still don't actually discuss, but instead revert to the one-sided version again without discussion. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It tries to be collaborative, but not at the cost of excessively non-neutral articles.

Some thoughts from WP:NPOV about the nature of NPOV:

• "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page"
• "not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct"
• "We accept, for the purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that 'human knowledge' includes all different significant theories on all different topics"
• "we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly"
• "a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call 'knowledge'."
• "Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness)"
• "It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views"
• " It is not our job to edit Misplaced Pages so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

On biased editing:

• "an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse"
• "There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view."
• "a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used."
• I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with? --> "This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says... It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included...This can be a particularly touchy subject"
• "The term Weaselspeak refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged". While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias" Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
• "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial

And last:

One further point should be borne in mind. Our best contributors should not have to waste huge amounts of their time handholding people who are clueless, ignorant, or have an ideological ax to grind; if some of the latter people constantly post nearly worthless stuff, and do not react to polite and reasonable criticism, they and their writing shouldn't expect to be treated nicely. MediaWiki: Understanding Bias (linked from WP:NPOV FT2 13:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. You have just committed a serious offense in your personal attack. But in response, I am going to point out in as polite a way possible your biases.

Your approach to NLP has been one of posting your own POV on the page (your own perceptions of what you think are inconsistencies), and your own claims that you think NLP is really powerful (yes you said that despite the strong evidence of NLP's ineffectiveness), and you have placed a section of speculation from a paper (1987) on the opening in order to negate a recent finding (post 2000). I suggest you are biased:) I will look for remedies for this, but considering I have made multiple compromises today and I cannot see any from you so far, I am going to continue to compromise by reverting to the position of compromise agreed under mediation. HeadleyDown 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But you feel that the paper is significant enough to support the post 2000 research. If Heap's work is worth citing, it's worth citing in a balanced manner. Your "compromise" has still not brought neutrality to the article, though it's closer (although in the main, not through your efforts). Both sides need representing. If the article was too NLP-pro and didn't characterize criticisms fairly, I'd add them myself too. But I'd do it by describing both fairly, not by misrepresenting or under-representing one. FT2 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just counted, for example, how many separate times the article mentions that Eisner called NLP pseudoscience or similar. Its about 6 repetitions so far - including the one you just added. My question is, is Heap still considered a quality comentator on NLP? If he is, then both quotes are valid. If not, then neither are reliable or both should have their flaws described by whoever critiqued him. FT2 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. No, I have been here long enough to have read extremely deeply into all of the papers and books and I have most of the papers right here on my desk, so I know if people are misrepresenting the facts (eg by snipping bits out of paragraphs without quoting the negative finding at the end:). The latter references quote Sharpley correctly because, like myself, they actually do research professionally. Their representation of Sharpley is that NLP is unsupported. They quote other review papers that say NLP is pseudoscientific in theory, pseudoscientific in association of principles, and of course ineffective in experiment and practice. All the latter scientists who do overall reviews say the same. They also state many other reasons why NLP is pseudoscience. Now most people know that there are pseudosciences used within psychotherapy, but they don't like it. People blame NLP, and they blame the way it is promoted by the main developers. To state that NLP is unsupported and therefore has been classed as pseudoscientific is really very neutral. Regards HeadleyDown 15:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. The section of Sharpley's article you present below is unrepresentative of Sharpley. Not only have you misrepresented his overall tone, but you have taken a small section of an argument that he presents in the paper to support your desire to promote NLP. Now, as you very well know, Sharpley concluded at the end of the paragraph you have partially represented, that NLP had been relegated.

At the end of the paper, Sharpley says that the research does not in any way support the ridiculous claims of NLP.

He put it in negative terms. Not only that but the statement that you present is higly inconclusive and totally unfit for an encyclopedia. He uses words like, may, perhaps, etc. He makes a statement about psychoanalysis being hard to test. But as you know, he believes the tenets of NLP to be perfectly testable. If you wish to take a word out of a critical paper such as "good" and state that Smith thinks NLP is good, when in fact Smith said that NLP is good for nothing, then you have misrepresented that article. JPLogan 01:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You have the papers? That helps. So please check.... did Sharpley say, or did he not say, ""There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures suggested by NLP have failed to be supported by those data. Perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field."". Is that, or is that not, a made-up quote? Never mind what you think he means. Are those, or are those not, words he says? FT2 18:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. FT2, I just looked up what my academic writer's manual says about your type of attribution. They call it "intellectual fraud". Oh dear! HeadleyDown 02:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about Headley, FT2. I actually like you; I think fanatics are hillarious. DaveRight 02:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version as of now looks quite good. Still the word "calibration" was useful, as it suggest that your mind can be recalibrated, which lead into "programming". The connection between NLP and progamming in the intro is a bit weak though.Voice of All 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again VoiceOfAll. I added your suggestions to the intro (calibration and programing). Tell us what you think. Regards HeadleyDown 02:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VoiceOfAll. I will see what I can do about the programing relationship. Regards HeadleyDown 00:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting improvements to the opening, just had a quick look. My main queries are

1. Calibration is described/used incorrectly (you don't recalibrate your mind, calibration is part of understanding non-verbal communication from someone).
2. I'm interested in clearly showing NLP vs applications, and they still merge a bit (though if the rest of the article is clear then that's fine)
3. There's still this thing from British Psych Society classifying NLP as quintessential charlantary - surely the BPS sources we've shown demonstrate this to be bogus. I gave multiple references of the BPS working with NLP , and FT2's link at BPS is also great .

Such blatant misrepresentation is common from a couple of editors, who when given multiple pieces of contrary evidence don't withdraw the claim, but simply look for some other source to make their point. Of course ignoring evidence and just rewording a claim, finding anecdotal quotes to support what is said should not come from us editors. This is where my understanding of wikipedia's NPOV and science preference differs from those editors. Anyway, I'll keep reading, my quick look has whet my appetite to catch up (tomorrow!). GregA 10:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Representing the article properly in the opening

Hello. I noticed that the opening really did not represent the article as a whole. So I added another paragraph in order to represent the article properly. I think more critique can be added. We have 3 large paragraphs giving NLP its say, but had only one little concise one saying what the scientists say. I added one for the critics. Regards HeadleyDown 14:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup! I agree. The opening is totally skewed towards promotion of NLP, and not much has been stated about the criticisms. It could be a lot clearer there. Now I have noticed on many other articles that the opening is stated properly (there is a statement about what the article presents, and then there is a qualifier from critics etc. The NLP article opening needs rebalancing to include a lot more criticism in order to make it represent the article properly. DaveRight 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Basic Tenets

Hello. Yes they are used all the time and are in the new books and editions on NLP. They are also used as the tests have tested them in the research. Here is evidence:

a. NLP coach uses the eye diagram lead/preferred/primaryRS, and says that people can be primarily one or the other also. The NLP Coach: A Comprehensive Guide to Personal Well-being and Professional Success Ian McDermott, Wendy Jago

b. Molden. Managing with the Power of NLP / eye diagram lead/preferred/primaryRS, and has a lot of information on preferred 1996

c. Dilts Bandler Metastates in A User Manual for the Brain Vol 2 2000 page 270 Diagram placing PRS as core to NLP. This puts prs and rs at the core of NLP in the recent model.

I was taught the primary representation system recently and it is still used in modeling according to my trainers (Grinder trainers). Sincerely. HansAntel 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

PRS seems fine to me right now(I made a few edits).Voice of All 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rep systems are certainly taught in both the old and new books and trainings on NLP. I've had no time for a bit (and still have little), but we have to make clear the difference between Rep Systems, Primary Rep Systems, and Preferred Rep Systems - at the moment all 3 seem to be being used synonymously. By separating that we can also show changes to how Preferred RS is taught. I'll have a look at the main article perhaps you've already sorted that out? Oh, HansAntel - what does Molden say about preferred rep systems? GregA 10:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Could use more clarity, some POV remains, to much use of "many".

This one looks to me to be resolved after Headley's editing. What do you think VoiceOfAll? Regards JPLogan 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP Applications

Had some POV, could use minor style rewordings.Voice of All 03:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has added a few NLP Applications. While I applaud the introduction of the multiple serious fields in which NLP is being applied, I think it's worth separating out the broader contexts (eg Therapy/Coaching/Self development) from specific organisations (eg FBI, Mental Health orgs). I don't know how to do that at this point... but I think it's worthwhile. Any comments (agree/disagree) and/or ideas on how to do that? GregA 11:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits Nov 7

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

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

Modeling

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

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

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

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

FT2 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

american cancer society

the american cancer society has some info about NLP.

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

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

FuelWagon 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I've finally got a day off :)

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

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

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

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

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

scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rapport (interpersonal rapport)

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

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

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

Energy

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

Again, Proper Representation in the Opening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funnily enough, if you'd checked, I did. My contribution to it was the suggestion that as "terrorist" is subjective depending whose side you are on, some major authors deprecate the term in favor of "militant", and a citation. That was in January 2005. I'd say you are precogniscant, except it seems quite clear that this was intended as sarcasm and a personal remark. There you go. As I keep saying on this page, check your facts next time, before editing, and don't talk about your knowledge until you have considered both sides... especially if it seems others are trying hard to tell you that you don't know it all after all. They may just be right. FT2 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round and round we go, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats interesting Greg. So if I were to post that little bit of vague nonsense on the article, would I cite you or FT2? DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you were being intelligent about it, you would quote "NLP is powerful" from the cult books that talk about how dangerously powerful NLP is, and "NLP is ineffective" from the skeptics dictionary and "science vs pseudoscience" books that say there is no evidence. Spoon fed :) GregA 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Greg/FT2 (definitely not sockpuppets of each other, you make slightly different mistakes, FT2's being the funniest). Of course I'm exaggerating. But only to make a point. NLP promoters did write "the difference that makes the difference" and so on, and are extremely stubborn when it came to removing those kind of promotions. I have a question for FT2; Do you think Sharpley writes in a straw man kind of way? If so, I think you need to consider looking in the mirror again. In continued response to your enquiry about the research; I see absolutely no reason to consider the positive side of a negative result. This is an encyclopedia, and the concise result will be used. Otherwise, you will end up supersizing the article. I noticed since FT2's mass changes to the article, it has actually more than doubled in size. When Comaze and the other self interested NLP promoters were working on their seperate hype page, the article suddenly got down to wiki recommended size. I get the impression that the NLP promoters have spent a lot of time trying to work their own little excuses into the article with absolutely no regard for concision. But then again, I also find it quite entertaining, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much. DaveRight 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Very mature. I agree the article is too long. I think that without any agreement on how to represent NLP it will get that way. The "separate" article also got much shorter when the anti-group weren't around.

Now, "the difference that makes the difference" is a description for modeling, when teaching someone to perform an effective pattern, you only teach the important bits. Yes the sentence rhymes... but why would that be a reason to remove something? GregA 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. there are many reasons to include both sides of a result - the main one being that it's an important scientific concept for presenting evidence. GregA

Hello FT2. The one thing consistent with NLP lovers is that they are constantly accusing people of not answering questions. Its as if they do not understand anything. It is blatantly clear what our opinions are. I am a scientist and I believe in and understand science. It is the most independent and neutral force within the advancement of knowledge. There are other bodies of knowledge that I have great respect for. Research in general is an excellent activity. Especially if it is rigorous and thorough. NLP is not broadly used. There was interest in NLP from therapists in the beginning, but it dwindled because therapists adhere to science to a fairly good level. The empirical research conducted on NLP is rigorous and credible and it will clarify things well for this article. I intend to represent the most neutral empirical knowledge that we have access to, and represent the most independent views on what that means. There is nothing more to say about it. If you want to ask questions, you know you will probably get answers. If you start hyping NLP above science then you will be told you are wrong by me or probably by someone else. If you vandalise or post unreasonable comments then you will probably be told not to. It is simple wikipedia process. I believe quite strongly in it and it seems to be working. Mediation suits me (because I believe mediators are about as neutral as me, and because they generally adhere to wikipedia's scientific bias). Arbitration is fine also, though it really is a very long way off, and as far as I can tell we have been moving in the opposite direction (towards stability). If that does not satisfy your question, feel free to ask further or more specifically. HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Short answer. Not broadly used, and the science is plausible, credible, and useful. HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, please, read carefully at least. This is what I call "avoiding the question". I asked one question, you answered a different question of your own preference that I did not ask. Specifically, I asked you to "comment on the research that has been done on it that suggests it's plausible or credible". You replied that the research you wanted to focus on was credible... which is great, but your reply completely ignored the actual question *I* asked. It'd help if you could answer it, please. That way I will not have to ask so many times. Thank you. FT2 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. Thank you for specifying your question more carefully as I requested. The prior empirical studies that show some small positive results have been explained as such (little evidence for efficacy). The empirical evidence that points to NLP being wrong is often entitled such as "Eye accessing cues: A statistical anomaly" or something like that. The reason being, the cues, nods, winks etc of NLP are deceptive. They are neither here nor there. They give no particular signal as to what people are thinking, how they are thinking, or what part of the brain they are using etc. It is similar to the research on mirroring. One of the most telling experiments was conducted on subjects who were told how mirroring works, and comparing with subjects who were not told. Mirroring was conducted, and the people who were told of it's effect beforehand were mightilly impressed and found the mirrorer very persuasive (subjective measures). The people who were not warned of mirroring found no difference between parrots and normal communicators. Furthermore, the theory behind what was tested is pseudoscience anyway. As you know, the overview gives a negative result. That is useful. Taking the "little positive" studies on their own really is just like you snipping a little positive section out of a critique, minus the negative conclusion. Regards HeadleyDown 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This is funny also, Faxx. When I came to this article, I was welcomed by Comaze. He pasted a sockpuppet label on my site. I decided to keep it and have posted an explanation. Now, again, I would actually love to go through a bit of arbitration. I have buckets of negative press to chuck on the NLP article. Notice how I have not actually added them? What does that suggest to you? Does it mean that I am a really nice fair minded chap, or does it mean that I simply want to keep the article as neutral and encyclopedic as poss? DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To Dave Right. Oh really then you must have some really positive stuff on NLP too Mr Right. Please indulge with both. Justin. Please answer?

Hello Faxx. Perhaps you could take up your problem with the mediator:) HeadleyDown 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

FT2. You state that you have been around for a long time, but you didn't notice that Faxx has added comment here already? I think that you should care more about what people have posted, and be more cooperative with them, and stop trying to add your own opinion to the article. DaveRight 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"New" is 4 weeks old and very few edits (4 at the time), all on this article or its related article engram. It might be a good idea to avoid the apparent appearance of "scoring points" by critiquing a reasonable enquiry that any experienced wikipedia editor might make, couched in courteous terms, especially given that there have been allegations of sock-puppetry in the past here. FT2 06:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Don't be too worried about the sockpuppet thing. Except for VoicOfAll, the neutrally minded long term editors have all had sockpuppet labels posted on their own articles, sometimes several times, never with supporting evidence, and sometimes with vandalism to their own statements or resumes and so on by NLP promoters. So it really is quite easy to identify the neutral editors. I havn't noticed any particular vandalism or accusations to the NLP promoter articles. However, TBP seems to be a self confessed sockpuppet and has supported your views very consistently (but then again all the NLP fanatics follow closely to your own fanatical edits and views). So the sockpuppet allegations/admissions are really very clear. NLP promoters see neutral and they post sockpuppet, neutral editors generally laugh it off as the desperate slurs of terminally unconvincing NLP promoters. Regards DaveRight 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Second posting - does that count as new? More a voyeur than an editor really. Comment stands, no point in talking to this guy IMHO Faxx 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Faxx, there is an Arbitration Committee vote at the top of this page. You may not have seen it. If you feel strongly, perhaps you ought to consider adding your feelings to it. Arbitration is a final resort on Misplaced Pages for disputes that seem to show no reasonable prospect of other resolution. There is a vote section, and a comment section. TBP 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2 has already moved for arbitration not long ago. There were votes although I did not participate due to not really participating in the editing. I've just been reading the endlesly recycling discussion. Nothing will get done this way. HeadleyDown obviously has nothing better to do with his time than pursue his crusade Faxx 11:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Faxx. If wikipedia policy and process is the crusade, then I'm all for it. I seem to have a lot of support for it, including from the mediator VoiceOfAll. Regards HeadleyDown 12:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Faxx. It is not entirely unconstructive. Each cycle involves NLP fanatics moaning about not liking the facts, so the neutral editors go and find more facts to satisfy the complaints. More facts means a better and more solid article. One way to stop the cycle is to stop moaning about the facts. That would also make for a very stable article. If the NLP fanatics were canny enough, they would have stopped moaning a couple of months ago, and we wouldn't have had to expose such detailed negative fact about NLP. It really is a case of - the deeper you dig, the dirtier it gets.HeadleyDown 12:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, what a totally unanticipated response Faxx 13:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV diff

After being away for a couple days, I return to find the criticisim of NLP to be in complete violation of NPOV. You cannot report someone's opinion about NLP as if it were fact. If their opinion of NLP is in dispute with the opinion held by NLP folks, then you must report the view as a view. Please take a look at this diff that fixes a number of basic NPOV violations. Learn the difference. FuelWagon 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my! Why such animosity to Headley? I thought I was the bluntly truthful one! I have just been reading the NPOV article about not holding back on writing about objectionable stuff. I think I have more writing to do!

In the meantime, I would like to direct ALL NLP promoters to the wiki policy on no personal attacks. Looks to me like NLP promoters are winning the personal attack competition hands down. Actually, one solution to this would be to follow NLP writer and promoter Andy Bradbury's example and just go and vandalize the poor old HeadleyDown article page instead.DaveRight 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Dave Right glad you are on board- However Headley Down presupposes we are "Fanatics" Not true and if veiled references are made through his writings it is made clear what he thinks of NLP and it's users and also his use of the Misplaced Pages which is quite extensive comnpared to my own of the subject, that he is non supportive of the concept, has not looked into positive reviews and has ignored facts to it's testimony. I personally have not made changes to the article and intend not to, I do however expect a responsibility to the article to be NPOV. A derogatory comment as NLP practitioners being involved in this article as being "fanatics" is an understatement compared to the level of his own involvement in the article.

O.K. heres one for you. Anthony Robbins was one of the top students of NLP when it began. However his methods were considerred by many in the NLP community to be cowboy in nature. Cowboy is the term given to those therapists who operate if not all the time then sometimes without the clients consent. It is widely taught in NLP schools he is a cowboy. However Richard Bandler the NLP co-creator in his book Persuasion Engineering written many years later in his thanks to people who he considerred genius' he cited Anthony Robbins as one of these genius'. So which way is it? Is Anthony a Cowboy or a Genius?

Justin. Under the circumstances, fan or fanatic is a mild term. Considering the rotten behavior of NLP promoters here, I believe the fanatic label is completely justified. It shows the level of bias very accurately. Remember that NLP promoters wanted to erase the fact that NLP is categorized as new age (even by NLP marketeers, and even though NLP is technically and anthropologically new age), and remember that NLP promoters wanted to remove the spirit and energy sections that are part of NLP and stated within the literature. NLP promoters here want to remove those facts in order to give the false impression that NLP is somehow reputable or broadley accepted as a respected subject of psychology or psychotherapy. In fact NLP is simply a dubious and ritualistic fringe treatment, just like EMDR, primal scream therapy, or energy/power therapies with some shamanism thrown in. NLP's biggest claim to fame is perfect NLP marriage promoter and divorcee Tony Robbins and firewalking. Bandler (the diet coach and obese shaman guru) comes far down the list of NLP fame in most people's view.

Not true. NLP and they are not promoters they are staying true to form, will not say that which is NLP which is not. Such as the comparison to Dianetics. Only such an unatuned mind would make such a distinction. Well Hell. You're right then. So lets change the name of the article. We'll call it "Dianetics". Oh but that's already taken. We better tell them to move out cos we want that name. O.K. then "Dianetics two" although I doubt we'll get Travolta to make a movie about it. No, NLP is quite different. It's not new age although it was created quite recently. I really dismiss all admissions of the term New age as being a tool to say a subject is propaganda to both generalise whole fields and dismiss them.

Promoters want to place NLP on the same level as the pseudoscientific subject of psychoanalysis, even though it has been scientifically demoted down from psychoanalysis.

What fine distinctions has Psychoanlayisis made that could not be made with NLP in psychoanalysis were that useful it would be promoted as useful by NLP Practitioners and then used. NLP moves far beyond that one Miss DeGrey. If you follow that NLP makes use of all useful models. On another note NLP moves away from analysis which requires one to look at each individual part and moves toward systems thinking which requires to see how parts fit together as a whole in a working system, as stated by Joseph O'connor in "the art of Systems thinking" this detracts from your comment of psycho ANALYSIS also as a NLPer becomes atuned as to how you work as a whole and not from some seperated part. please tell me there is more to this cos I know there is more to NLP. Good Day

Notice that NLP promoters will use as many references to "excellence, great minds, and high performers" when if fact all the developers do is read a few biographies and make it up as they go along (no way of judging if the models are correct) and NLP developers are totally unexcellent in providing rigorous theories and tests to support NLP.

Not true. as a communications tool the new NLPer fledgling starts to question as to how to aquire results. Fine distinctions are made without the aid of biographies. However the option to model someone from a Book is not closed.

Promoters want to quote "the study of the structure of subjective experience" but that in itself is a wild claim (NLPers do not study such things on the whole - they just do a bunch of rituals that some pseudoscientist claims will work for them). NLP should be defined as "claiming to know the structure of subjective experience and applying it as a universal panacea".

Rituals: MMM I could have fun with that. Doctors in our medical centres and hospitals do that study and then undergo ritualistic behaviour to heal. They even congregate in huge buildings that herald their profession and cite the hipocratic oath. So really what is a ritual? and what is a Cult? Clarity of what you mean will mean the world to me. and not only that it's practical.

If promoters spend months trying to remove facts, and trying to put hype into the article, whilst repeatedly stating that neutral editors "do not understand NLP" even though neutral editors have provided the article with solid rigorous scientific evidence, then fanatic is a great word for the promoters here. Since editing here, I am coming far more to the conclusion that NLP really is a kind of self-delusion inducing cult.

Facts: Like NLP is a CULT, Like NLP is exactly like Dianetics, Like NLP deals with engrams. None of these are mentioned in NLP literature

Headley seems to be biased towards science. I am admittedly becoming more biased towards science. Misplaced Pages is also biased towards science. Its the best way to keep the pseudoscience of NLP in order. AliceDeGrey 05:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice: the sentence "NLP is a cult" is not a "fact", it's an opinion. It sounds as if you don't know much about Dianetics either, or are relying on others, for that other comment "NLP is exactly like Dianetics". Where on earth did you get those ideas? There is a huge difference between something that any person can observe and which has significant scientific and field testing by credible third parties (even if you are unaware or have not cared to research it neutrally), and the church of scientology. And that other quote which shows you profoundly do not understand Misplaced Pages WP:NPOV: "Misplaced Pages is also biased towards science". Misplaced Pages does NOT have a bias in the sense you mean it.I'll ask you the same as I have asked others. Do you actually know just how much research has been done on NLP? Do you know how widespread its use by credible serious bodies is, that do *not* view it as "pseudioscience" but say they have tried it and it's proven itself a powerful tool "in the field" in their experience? Why have you not checked these things rather than just taking what you read as gospel, before opining on an article you clearly don't know a whole side of? Please, won;t you actually do some research of your own. FT2 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're really funny FT2. Take a look into literature about cults, fringe therapies, dubious therapies etc. They place dianetics and NLP in the same category. Sorry, but you are well in there in both philosophy and practice. DaveRight 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is a Science isn't the only claim NLP developers have made and I think you are missing the point. Good day. Oh and by the way have you never stopped yourself from seeing a movie because of bad reviews and then yourself given it bad reviews even though you've never seen it? Is that questionable?

Justin, you are presuming too much. You presume that I havn't tried NLP, you presume that neutral (non pronlp) editors have not been accredited in NLP training, and you seem to make out that NLP is some kind of higher order knowledge. NLP is promoted as being extremely accessible. Anyone can have a go. Of course if you know psychology, you are not going to be conned by the NLP pseudoscientists. If you are going to make comments or edits, I suggest you read through this discussion and archives properly, and you look up all the NLP references that mention spirit, spirituality, engrams, past life experiences and so on. There has been a lot of research presented, and you have demonstrated that you have not even tried to read it. AliceDeGrey 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No I have not said it is a higher order of knowledge only it is different as one person is to the next. And what of psychology do you make that it ranks higher than distinctions made by NLP. they too are different in form and context so what makes it any less valid. As for books on "past life experiences" you read books at your own peril and a writer does not represent the industry as a whole. Even spirituality is discussed in a matter in which it may be. NLPers are encouraged to try new models to see what they do and where they go. You do not have to follow a NLPer to the ends of the earth. This is called independance a bi product of NLP teachings. As for engrams which relates to memory NLP institutes refer memory change methods as submodalities. So what I can't understand (and I do agree that I have not read much on engrams) is that why is emphasis put on engrams when the emphasis in NLP is on submodalities. And even then who has written about engrams and in what context was it made. To tell you the truth one does not need to know about engrams to make radical memory changes please tell me it's relevance or how it takes the field forward. Submodalities suit just fine it does no more nor no less than what it is supposed to do. And even as an idea or a construct of ways of determining memory do not take for granted that engrams is not of a similar ilk.

Thats very interesing Justin:) Submodalities (an obscurantism in itself) is a pseudoscientific concept that is mixed up with attractive but erroneous brain myths that you will read about in any self help manual that doesn't use science. "Do what works" is something borrowed straight from dianetics, as is "the science and technology of achievement". Its really silly to be driving yourself deeper into pseudoscience territory by even mentioning such things as if they are wisdom.

I never said it was wise. I said it was there and is widely used in NLP teachings. please who is presuming Miss DeGrey.Justin

Submodalities are about as convincing as spirit therapy or phrenology. I dread to think of how many people have been put to death based on such nonsense as eye accessing cues or their submodalities. That kind of pseudoscience it totally unhelpful. Its mostly just silly, but after reading accounts of what goes on with these "therapies" I have to say, its actually quite worrying also. AliceDeGrey 07:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Really but to deny it's (submodalites) importance within NLP and it's students in this article would be ignorance. Do you know what a submodality is? and even then how it is used or I should say they are used. RE:"the science and technology of achievement" yes NLP borrows from other cultures religions and psychologies not because NLP or it's originators want to be them but because they work toward action toward a result. Justin

OK Justin. So you like pseudoscience. I am not keen. NLP likes to take scientific sounding words but no NLPer is willing to test NLP properly. And they still talk of Bandler and Grinder as if they are scientists. NLP is the archetypal source for psychobabble. NLP promoters make claims, and these are tested. They fail. In a way NLP works quite well. Not to help people, but to sell pseudoscientific books for getting people to repeat buy in order to buy more of the same junk because it is unsatisfying. To me, that looks like they are making people desperately insecure, and then never coming up with the goods. That is unethical. AliceDeGrey 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are they selling the books too. NLP practitioners who have done the course and know how to program therefore knowing what to do with them. But reaaly they're aimed at uneducated fools who wanna buy the first book on psychology that they see. Isn't that right Alice. LMAO. What righteous trash that is. They're not marketted that way. They are marketted to people who are already practicing. I dont consider NLP a pseudoscience. Always with scientists they wanna pidgeon hole something give it a name and stick it in a corner NLP eludes that. So try as you might it will not be labelled. Alice you're not NPOV. I make no claim to edit but to shape it. You dont learn NLP from books you learn it from a NLP trainer or practitioner that should be stated. The trance induced by such beings might have something to do with that.

Look you have said that NLPers on this article have complained that you need to know NLP to understand it. Have you ever turned around for more answers and just said enlighten me? Alice?

Justin. You can look for enlightenment in many ways. But this encyclopedia will enlighten using facts, not just made up stories. Have a look at the literature. Don't just take my word for it. AliceDeGrey 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of today’s NLP teachings

The profession of medicine is just a ritual, holding your head downwards is a clear sign of clinical depression, new age is propaganda, NLP is about short quick powerful ideas for preventing boredom, science isn’t the only claim NLP has made, you read books at your own peril, NLP took language as far as psychobabble, NLP books are marketed to people already practicing NLP, NLP cannot be labeled, you can’t learn NLP from books and must pay for a trainer, NLPers do not get divorced and have long serving jobs, and Anthony Robbins is a genius. Mmm interesting set of assertions! I’ve heard this kind of thing from the likes of Greg, Andy Bradbury, Comaze, FT2 and others. Dull wanker is a new one on me though. I’ll bear that in mind next time I edit. HeadleyDown 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow you're really that NPOV? Justin

MMMM to be taken out of context. These are comparisons that bring up the ridiculous comparisons and likenesses you have come up with for NLP in your "research" Headley and partly some are jokes. However we must know that such things as cults once did not exist so really the concept iis created by man meaning man created a whole way to class specific groups with one word. a negative word. Fanatic can also be taken negatively and I see no difference of fanaticism in my stance in defending the subject and your stance to detract from it. I dont mock the medical profession I mock what you consider ritual to be. I never said NLP was exactly for preventing boredom though it can be done. NLP has more claims than just claiming to be a science a fact you must admit and or write about. The truth is that comment means when you read something you believe it at your own peril. I thought you knew that already about life. No I actually said it took the language beyond psycho babble, Maybe I should have said took it toward a workable model. Largely NLP is marketted that way I believe. Many people I talk to dont know what NLP is. So interest is not exactly thrust in it's direction from non NLPers looking for self help books. I think they'd prefer Doctor Phil who is more high profile. Yeah it can be labelled but who in NLP wants to do that unless it's useful. Yeah a trainer will make all the difference in NLP training. Please tell me you learnt it cold from a book. That would be amazing. Please tell me how did you do it? Yes NLPers can enjoy richer relationships and in most cases keep productive where employment is concerned was the point and also a jibe at yourself. Didn't say Anthony Robbins was a Genius. There was a comparison of opinion about him where you could go either way. Something not achieved in this article. and yes looking down does not mean that you are clinically depressed. Justin

Hello Justin. NLP does not have to claim to be a science in order to be a pseudoscience. There are people who claim it, including developers, although a pseudoscience is simply; "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation" (Oxford Dictionary). Of course this will apply more strongly to subjects that try to appear scientific in order to dupe unsuspecting consumers. And it will apply even more harshly to subjects that have been tested and found to fail, and where promoters just make lame excuses and carry on with their head in the sand, or with their mind on your wallet. Actually, trying to be generous, you sometimes give the impression that you are still largely unsuspecting. Regards DaveRight 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You know upon my first training and modeling my life to the expectancy of what I would like for myself money was furthest from my mind and still is. If you follow film literature and you're own example that money is not the root of happiness and is infact materialistic then it is fair to assume that NLPers also follow a similar vein of thought and more so if it is a part of their personal psychology it is soon remedied with deeper meanings in life and the behaviours we use to fulfill intention. A lot of people know money will not fulfill and a NLPers questioning of his own inner purpose would contradict that money will bring happiness as well. I don't think of money when I do a job or NLP with someone. I dont even charge, that's just me though others will because NLP has become their profession. I'm more interested what I can do outside of NLP in terms of actually applying it in different fields. Your argument about money is weak and holds no bearing on the situation at hand I hope you do not use such justifications when writing an article on the Misplaced Pages after all: How do you know that money is a primary interest of people publishing their work and then wanting it to be sold? I do not argue that NLP is not pseudoscience you guys brought that one up all on your own. However upon looking it up there is a section that talks about how it is interpreted, usually negative. See all these words you use. Cult, Pseudoscience, Shamanism, Rituals, New Age etc.. to generalise a field, whilst NLP has some traits in common with these it does not posess all traits therefore the words you use are too general to use and misleading into areas that are not explored by core NLP or NLP foundations. However there is a huge section which I have consistently refferred to in this article that has multiple views on how NLP is dubious, unscientifically proven, shamanistic and so forth that misrepresent the field with examples of individuals rather than as a whole. maybe there should be other sections to different schools of thought on NLP rather than lumping them all together. I didn't say that for NLP to be a pseudoscience it has to claim to be a science. Please don't put words in my mouth it's awful dreadful and frightenning. If someone hadn't seen what I wrote earlier they might presume this is true. Justin

Back to Basics

The preceding discussion seems to me to be meandering and becoming increasingly further removed from the original matters of concern. NPOV -- in this context can be achieved -- by stating the claims of NLP practitioners, eg. "Bandler claims...', 'Grinder claims...', 'Baffa claims...' and by emphasing that there is little in the way of evidence -- i.e. obtained using well-accepted and well-proven research and review methods -- to support these claims and that where studies have been conducted they have largely found against NLP's efficacy. On a theoretical level, NLP's implicit theoretrical statements about neurology, psycholinguistics, linguistics and cognition are outdated and derived from the 1970s when NLP was being formulated. NLP's theoretical underpinnings are largely a "snap shot" of neurological and linguistic theory of the 1970s.

The article states the above, to that extent it is NPOV.

Anecdote counts for little -- using anecdote we can "prove" anything eg. "if you smoke and drink heavily you'll live to 90 years of age" -- and NLP proponents seek to justify NLP with reference largely to anecdote. Whether the anecdote is personal or in the form of a "case study" is immaterial both are unreliable as evidence.

All of the healings and behavioural changes attributed to NLP can be just as well attributed to non-specific factors of the "treatment" (i.e. the placebo effect). In the absence of blinded and controlled studies we can just as well conclude that Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved not by a brilliant execution of the "Fast Phobia Cure" but merely by the non-specific factors of the "null" treatment i.e. patient expectation, patient belief regarding treatment and patient-therapist trust. The significance of non-specific factors is well researched and well-understood (see http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060001a.html, http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060006c.html#c1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/Placebo_effect).

The purpose of controlled and blinded studies is to determine whether treatment X is more effective than placebo (and to a lesser extent to determine the magnitude of non-specific factors in a treatment). If a treatment has not been subject to this kind of examination then there is no reason to assume that anything other than non-specific factors are in effect when that treatment is applied.

The only recent form of psychotherapy that has demonstrated value -- i.e. better than placebo -- is Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. That is to say, CBT has been demonstrated to possess more efficacy than would be expected if only non-specific factors were in effect.

Further, modern medicine's (including psychology and psychiatry's) appreciation of non-specific factors in treatment is demonstrative that the medical profession (research and clinical) acknowledges that the mind (more specifically the meaning ascribed to an encounter) powerfully influences the outcome of a medical encounter. Non-specific factors and their influence on the outcome of a treatment are ever-present and unavoidable: they are present when any medical practitioner prescribes a drug, they are present when the witchdoctor spills the blood of a chicken, they are present when the shaman utters an incantation, they are present when Bandler asks his wide-eyed volunteer to "roll the anxiety in the other direction" in an NHR session, and they are present when a Reiki practitioner lays their hands. The vital difference between the medical practitioner and the others is that medical practitioners intervention brings more than non-specific factors, the drug trials which preceded the drugs introduction assure us of this, i.e. there are specific attributes of the drug which exert a beneficial physiological effect. The point is that NLP has not been demonstrated to be anything more than a delivery mechanism for non-specific factors. This is entirely consistent with the anecdotes regarding NLPs efficacy. flavius 06:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius. There is more to it than that though. The anecdotes are mixed with principles that have been found to be scientifically unsupported. Robbins talks of psychology, as do others including Dilts, who also talks about neuroscience. In addition to this, anecdotes by doctors and psychotherapists are generally not wild claims. A large percentage of NLP uses wild claims, in both its principle hypotheses and its marketing push. Put simply, the views of scientists are that they have tested NLP and it does not measure up. It is a pseudoscientific subject for many reasons. Therefore, the anecdotes regarding NLP's efficacy are criticised for being totally wild, and they do not even measure up to normal standards. CBT does have good support (and certainly does not suffer from exaggerated claims) though there are far more therapies that have gained scientific support. Regards AliceDeGrey 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If the underlying principles are unsound then it is to be expected that the method will lack efficacy and vice-versa. Certainly the anecdotes of medical practioners and psychotherpists are generally not as intemperate as those of NLP trainers and practitioners but they are, nevertheless, merely anecdotes and consequently prove nothing. Anecdotal evidence remains anecdotal evidence irrespective of its source. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points all, flavius. There is one significant piece of missing information. There is substantial research that has tested NLP, either in its principles, or in the field, that has repeatedly concluded it can be effective when tested with an appropriately designed test or in a clinical context. As you will recall, the major criticism of many researches has been, that the tests were poorly designed, or that NLP needed to be tested in its own context. As best I can tell, there is now significant evidence that this is the case and has been done. Additionally, whilst anecdotal evidence by paractitioners is correctly identified as a source of bias, and must be examined carefully for the placebo effect which is the immediate suspect in many new techniques, anecdotal evidence should not be dismissed when it becomes of a serious scale, and likely not to merely be the placebo effect. NLP is widely used in many non-NLP contexts, where it is reported positively by credible sources. For these reasons I have suggested that it is inaccurate to state that NLP is unsupported, or dismissed, because it is clear that it is valued in the field by credible non-NLP organisations and mixed results in scientific testing, and at the same time, some others consider it highly dubious. That sounds like a pretty classic Misplaced Pages "present both views and the evidence". That's why I am at a loss why this article is being so heated and controversial. FT2 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are studies that demonstrate the efficacy of NLP then please cite them so that we can review them and judge for ourselves. AFAIK there are no such studies but I am prepared to be demonstrated wrong. There are some troublesome phrases in your response. What does it mean to say that "NLP need to be tested in its own context"? Also, where is this "significant evidence" that you allude to? You can't examine anecdotal evidence "for the placebo effect". In the absence of a controlled and blinded research design you can assume that non-specific factors influenced any positive outcome, that is why anecdote has little evidentiary value. According to what epistemological principle is it that "anecdotal evidence should not be dismissed when it becomes of a serious scale"? Given the universality of the placebo effect it is to be expected that it will manifest on a "serious scale". It would be remarkable if a treatment -- the efficacy of which is entirely derived from non-specific factors -- did not show this effect in numerous encounters. The prevalence of an outcome does not -- it can not -- demonstrate that the outcome is not explicable in terms of non-specific factors. Only a controlled and blinded research design can do this. The putative authority of sources or the (subjective) valuation of NLP by "credible non-NLP organisations" is entirely irrelevant in terms of demonstrating that an NLP intervention is more effective than placebo. What is in dispute -- and what is yet to be demonstrated by any credible research -- is not whether an NLP intervention has any positive effect. We know that literally anything that has therapeutic meaning associated with it can produce a positive outcome. The point in dispute -- which is vitally important -- is that it is yet to be demonstrated that an NLP intervention has a positive effect beyond that produced by a placebo. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. You are at a loss. The reason your edits get reverted is because you keep posting selective edits. The conclusion of science is that NLP has been tested and it is scientifically unsupported. Some writers go further and speak in more lay terms, stating that NLP has proven to be ineffective. Not only do scientists come to this conclusion, but commander in chief's of the US armed forces and their supporting boards of advisors do also. Einspruch is the only writer to claim that some of the tests were incorrect. This was refuted by Sharpley (with further empirical evidence), and all the later scientists concur with Sharpley, and go further to talk of what happened after the 1980s - ie the internet boom and all the nonsense that surrounds NLP. They talk of intellectual fraud, pseudoscience, and mass marketed psychobabble, Tony Robbins, etc. As mentioned earlier today, NLP is fringe. It is tiny compared to the empirically supported field of CBT, and insignificant compared to all the other therapies.

I suspect that this impasse stems from a misunderstanding of non-specific factors and the role of research design in isolating these from the specific factors of the intervention. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages must be kept up to date, and to date, NLP has promised theraputic magic, a science or art of achievement, the most powerful synthesis of psychology available, faster and more powerful treatments than traditional therapies, guaranteed excellence in whatever you want, amazing results through the metamodel/submodalities/parapragmatics/and the most poweful technique for copying Einstein or Jesus known to the bookstore new age section, better management for right brainers, the unfair advantage in sales, and the best collection of pseudoscientific cop-outs since dianetics.

On the other hand, the science'a view (and anyone else with common sense) is that NLP is psychobabble, pseudoscience, mass marketed psychobabble, promotion of mind myths for money, ineffective therapy, unsupported principles, pseudoscientific explanations, pseudoscientific excuses, fraudulent marketing ploy for selling any snakeoil you can put together, and cultlike misinformation for profit.

I'd say that presents both views. HeadleyDown 11:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

selective reading, selective hearing, selective maps of the world, selective words, selective concepts to use, selective belief. are your edits selective too Mr. Headley? and even then would you know how to make the difference?

FWIW,the father of neurolingustics and originator of the often quoted phrase "the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzybski argued that the most accurate maps are produced by science (see General Semantics). By implication the scientific method is the most reliable method for "map construction". flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes FlaviusVanillus. NLP users love to quote Korzybski, but they do so very selectively. Take a look at the intellectual anticedents section on this page. Its outrageous. Most of them will be turning in their grave to think NLPers are namedropping them into the pseudoscience swamp. I think this does come back to the scientific skepticism idea. One piece of pseudoscience says that you must suspend judgment in order to create ideas. NLP does this a lot. But actually, thats all 60s business bunk. The fact is, an expert has a good intuitive idea of whether something will hold or not (intuition in terms of "will this work?"). So if they hear something spurious within idea generation they will drop it like a skunk's legpit. It does not stop them generating; strong skepticism just directs their search better. Anyway, even in groups, idea generation (the amount of ideas generated and the quality) is enhanced through skepticism and dissent. That has been consistent in recent research and goes directly against what new age pseudoscience proposes and assumes throughout (Nemeth 1999 - Minority dissent and idea generation). Anyway, its really interesting stuff. Popular misconceptions and learning from pseudoscientist's mistakes! Cheers DaveRight 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, I agree that not all Korzybski's is selectively imported into NLP. For example, Grinder & Bandler directly quote Korzybski and acknowledge the contributions to formal systems and human modeling (1975). The rest of the Korzybski influence was probably imported via Bateson (1972, 1979). Bateson was very supportive John Grinder and Richard Bandler in their quest to model Perls, Satir and Erickson. And had many long coversations with John Grinder (see eg. Whispering, 2001) whilst writing Mind & Nature. --Comaze 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2: last night I went to look up NLP and science to see reports. I sort of don't want to enter the debate on the particulars with these guys. I could research it more and come up with arguments however it seems futile at the moment. The last few passages I wrote was more an appeal to the editors to do the right thing however skeptical I am of their view of NLP. I say good work with trying to come up with a solution. Keep going please. Lame excuses may come out not to use them. Any way I didnt get to the research as such but came across a page by someone who had also researched NLP and it's claim to science. Yeah we get creamed if we try to say it is a science, I'm not too fazed about that, Nor about it being pseudoscience. Some labels bother me due to misrepresentation I'd hope that people would know how to make the distinction. This guy in the article says in his research he found that developers didnt even want to try and prove it was a science. FT2 if you are a NLPer we both know what a NLPer may feel about trying to prove himself or a theory. This news I hope will be valuable to you and perhaps if you research it, it can be used if proven true then it surely would have some weight as to the outcome of what some testers might have thought "mindreading" toward the NLP advocates. Also Headley the "lame excuse's" line is getting old. I'd like to know what the lame excuses were if you are so inclined to tell us. That's a genuine request. My feeling is that whilst an explaination may not rest well with a tester it may have made perfect sense to a NLPer. PLease tell these "lame excuses" sometimes you have to demonstrate the situation to fully know the communication and it's validity in the original context to be able to know if they were "lame excuses". Justin

Justin, this is a concerning post. Whether NLP can be considered a science is a matter quite distinct from the efficacy of NLP. The epistemic status of NLP (science, pseudoscience or religion) is a matter in the philosophy of science. Whether NLP interventions are more effective than placebo has nothing to do with its epistemic status. The key point is that there is no evidence that NLP is any more effective than placebo. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"The techniques of NLP are so fundamental that they are integrated into the training of all United Nations diplomats." http://dir.niehs.nih.gov/sdnews/july99.pdf --Comaze 00:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

During the 19th century the field of phrenology was enormously popular and influential (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/phrenology/overview.htm). The popularity or cultural significance of a body of (alleged) knowledge does not render it more or less true. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just taking a few quotes from the above...

Not only do scientists come to this conclusion, but commander in chief's of the US armed forces and their supporting boards of advisors do also.HeadleyDown 11:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You should think about what you're saying. Firstly the president (or whoever) is not qualified to judge if NLP is supported, he leaves it to psychologists etc (who may be on the board of advisors). So I suggest rather than claiming the president as the final word, maybe you should stick to the more relevant claim of scientists. Secondly the US armed forces found that Preferred Rep Systems were unsupported by the studies at that time, and that those studies were flawed... (hence no study supports PRS). Scientists do recognise the difference between "Good studies found no support" and "Bad studies found no support"... though you can generalise and say "studies found no support" which removes some important info. It's integral to research to take into account the flaws in a study. GregA 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

All of the healings and behavioural changes attributed to NLP can be just as well attributed to non-specific factors of the "treatment" (i.e. the placebo effect). In the absence of blinded and controlled studies we can just as well conclude that Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved not by a brilliant execution of the "Fast Phobia Cure" but merely by the non-specific factors of the "null" treatment i.e. patient expectation, patient belief regarding treatment and patient-therapist trust.flavius 06:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all true but has a significant flaw. In the absence of blinded and controlled studies there are other attributions we can make (that's why blinded and controlled studies are preferred). To rephrase what you said - until blinded/controlled studies are done, all you can say is "yes Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process. But we can't definitively say whether it was the NLP process which did it". This difference is important in our discussion (as are the other replies regarding supporting tests of NLP efficacy). GregA 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

GregA, you are missing the point. No, you can't say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process". In the absence of controls it is arbitrary to in any way relate the therapeutic outcome to the NLP fast phobia cure. Why not associate the therapeutic outcome to the color of the room the intervention took place in? On what basis -- in an uncontrolled environment given the powerful effects of non-specific factors -- can you pick one set of variables and disregard the others. The application of the fast phobia cure occurs amidst a sea of variables. The details of the fast phobia cure are no more significant than the other incidentals of the intervention. If you can say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved when she did the NLP phobia reduction process" the you can just as well say "Mrs Smiths arachnophobia was relieved after sitting in this chair for 15 minutes". This may appear pedantic but it is the core of the matter. flavius 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute and dubious stuff

Well, I see my changes have been reverted with some brief explanation from Hans. I'll present my changes here to get comments and resubmit my changes based on responses.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening

All I changed was "Heap etc find that NLP to be pseudoscience" to "Heap etc state that NLP is a pseudoscience". See NPOV Bias in Attribution.GregA

Heap actually states that NLP is fraudulent. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good addition to my correction, thanks. "find" should say "state", and it was a misquote anyway. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Overview

I added that NLP is applied to therapy, and clarified that NLP is applied to fields. A month ago everyone was saying therapy was the prime application, then self-development became the prime one... but both are valid and representative applications of NLP. GregA

NLP is self help mostly, with some therapists doing a course, and some NLPers pretending to be real therapists. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Self help seems more focussed on group trainings and individuals - though most of the NLP processes are taught as one person (trained in NLP processes) working with another person - ala counselling and coaching. How do you suggest representing this most common 2-person interaction? GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to make an admission that there are a lot of people promoting NLP here when they should be writing an encyclopedia. I see no balance in their arguments. NLP is mostly self help. The therapy people and organizations are minor in comparison with the self help industry part of NLP.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP is often training in the modeled patterns of excellence, which are bound to also be able to be used to self-help. It's also used in therapy. We need to clarify the application vs what it is.

I also rephrased the opening paragraph as the prior one was misleading.

(oh, the "NLP includes 3 ideas...." I find confusing - I removed Engram references but I agree they are still confusing so I'll leave them.)GregA

Concerning the changes made; Submodalities needs explaining. Its a bad word anyway, but it should be explained (The distinctions we make within each rep system, the qualities of our internal representations) etc. Right now it is not clear. I also think this is not a "how to do NLP" manual, and so that babble could simply be kept in the pseudoscience section. HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed it's not a "how to do NLP manual". However, if you won't use an NLP term as intended but only put it in the pseudoscience "babble" section then you're incredibly biased. Anyway - you agree we should explain submodalities.

Currently it says "how people store and retrieve past memories is based on transformational grammar". I've not heard anything like that, though I agree that a word has a meaning for people. In fact when accessing memories in NLP you often use a trans-derivational search which uses the representation systems to access a memory, another method is simply asking someone to remember something, or using a timeline. What would you change this line to (you've seen my suggestion). It also confuses what came first etc.. The modeling came first and was related to the grammar, all facts are still represented. The following paragraph says that NLP people changed their mind about 'theory' when transformational grammar was abandoned... that's deliberately misleading.GregA

I noticed that Patrick placed that there. Do you think he is anti NLP or is it simply that NLPers do not even know what each other are on about? Nice bit of psychobabble there also. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. Nice choices you gave me there Maulden. Think outside the square eh?. If we had to be perfect to post here, there wouldn't be anyone posting! Anyway, I don't really care who made a mistake, it's what's written that matters. Do you act differently depending on who says something? Also we've tried a few times to represent the broad scope of NLP training so it's quite likely that we'll have different takes and it's valuable to reflect that. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP also uses the concept of hemispheric differences in order to promote NLP. This must be someone mindreading "NLP" - saying they teach hemispheric stuff because they want to promote NLP???? Got any sources?GregA

Actually, when you look into the background of NLP, the left right thing is throughout all of the books in the form of eye accessing cues diagrams and other such pseudoscientific nonsense. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when you look throughout the books they usually teach eye-accessing cues and differences in left and right eye cues - but that's not the same thing as tying it to brain hemispheres (though some books do that) GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The intellectual antecedents part is very dubious. I think you could call those wild claims also.HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at all the intellectual antecedents comaze was adding. Quite detailed. It seemed simpler to refer to cog sci antecedents as they're the same (very different for what they DO with the antecedents, but the same history).GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very funny. The claims NLPers love to make are completely bogus. NLP was designed to sell. Of course they are going to use names such as Einstein, Perls, Satir and so on. Sounds great, but means absolutely nothing. AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wanting to sell a product, is unrelated to the quality of the product. Perls & Satir were original models, are you disputing that? Anyway, back to my sentence, which was there are shared intellectual antecedents with the cognitive sciences.... Comment on that? GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Goals

It says that you can replace beliefs with good ones, or replace beliefs with bad ones. Why not say "it can replace beliefs"? I'm not too worried as long as it's clear.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles & Presups

All I've done is corrected some grammar and explained some slightly clearer. No idea if there's an objection to that.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Modeling

I separated out the common parts of NLP modeling and Analytic modeling, and made the differences clear. Problem?

Background

This had some significant changes simply because so much is irrelevant to NLP. This is not a history of Perls article.

Nor is it a rehash of the scientific testing or spiritual connections - I left a note on these in my change and referred to the appropriate section GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

This section I went back over past changes that have been made and reverted without much comment, and reposted what I thought was fair and hope to have some debate on it. I'll say why I thought it was fair: GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Heap's quote characterising NLP with gullibilism is pretty repetitive, and didn't tie down anything new. Removed. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The British Psych society says nothing negative about NLP so Parker is highly dubious. Platt's comment... well, that line is his opinion not what he called 'review'. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims

I removed the "as yet no scientific evidence" as it clearly belongs in the science section, and it's repeated ad nauseum.

Some statements really do need restating for the sake of clarity. I think you should be happy that the statement does not read "NLP has always been ineffective and is full of ridiculous pseudoscientific salespitch". AMaulden 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a broken record... it doesn't belong in the "extraordinary claims" section. As to its validity lets talk about that in FT2s section... it's not a clear cut subject. GregA 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The claims to breast enhancement are not criticisms against NLP, rather against people making such claims and citing NLP processes. Still worth noting in the article of course.GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Unethical Use

This is the area where ecology is really important. Ecology is how NLP processes are used in a way beneficial to the subject, and as such need to be discussed in relation to ethics. Instead it's been removed, so I readded it (and it was removed).

You've got more comments on "NLP is unsupported"... refer to the other section. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious New Age

Firstly I changed the heading to remove the bias. Clarified the application of NLP in those areas. I'm not sure who wrote this originally but it is far more neutral that what's there. GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cult Characteristics

You'd better read that one. It's incredibly biased at present. "The presuppositions of NLP create a background for reduced resistance"... really...GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

so in summary....

I see some people wanting to remove "objectionable" facts about NLP. I also think this is just bad editing. I will revert it myself. Really after looking at this article for a few weeks, I see a good deal of real information being presented about NLP, and I see some NLP sellers wanting to remove objectionable knowledge from public view. I noticed a lot of compromise towards the sellers, but none the other way. I think the only way to solve the problem is to explain as I have done, and to change it back. Sorry HansAntel 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're biased by calling me and others "sellers", and you obviously never read the (temp) page if you think we haven't been forced to compromise alot. Yes explaining is the only way to solve this so please respond to my comments. If (when reverting) you can leave in what you DON'T object to rather than reverting everything it'd make it easier - in good faith I've made these sections above to get your feedback though some are probably unnecessary(??). The biggest problem with this article is that if anyone says anything, it's fair game to go in the article... no wonder it's getting so huge. This in contrast to working out what are minor POVs and getting to the core of what NLP is (which this article fails to do). GregA 03:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh.. BTW, I just noticed you ONLY commented on the "overview" section. I'm wondering whether you considered the other sections at all.?? And you say "less babble"... can you tell me ANY babble that was added (besides ECOLOGY). yes there is the submodality stuff, which you said needs to be mentioned - how do you personally decide if it needs to be mentioned or is babble? GregA 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-American View is Too Narrow

Hello again. I myself am from mainland Europe and I have noticed that the NLP sellers like to follow the Anglo American view of NLP too much. In Europe and Asia, NLP does not get the same kind of views. It is seen very much as a pseudoscince cult in France, in Germany they are very against such weak methods, and other places also simply call it self help sales speak. This is especially after the 90s when businesses all over were changed and they were told to get used to it using such NLP seminar kind of change management methods. In business it is just seen as hoodwinking. I think this needs to be taken into account much more. The article needs a world view. HansAntel 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The international view is far more reasonable AMaulden 05:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure Hans. I'll start putting in the refs you sent us. Best regards HeadleyDown 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Research

Hiya Justin: Your points above are noted.

Between work and moving home, I've been nailing down the research Headley & Co. may have missed. I have summarized the abstracts of the research that does seem to be scientific, and the uses of credible bodies who do seem to use NLP significantly, as well as observations on a few apparent concerns over some of the cited sources: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Research

Headley, Logan, DaveRight, Bookmain: It seems you have already sourced your views, including a fair number of questionable citations and assumptions, and dismissively deleted other valid information by other editors who have sought to represent the neutral view Misplaced Pages aims for. As a result the article is well informed on these views, whereas there is still ignorance on the part of some editors as to the range, depth, and volume of other research and other views in the field. My time being in demand and limited right now, I have cited for now only the missing aspects of research.

Three relevant quotes:

1. "No! To my knowledge, there is no paper or book in existence that says NLP is not a pseudoscience."
2. "I simply represent the views of the scientists that I have read about"
3. "I am happy to make it clear here. If there were a significantly similar number of review studies or large psychotherapy books that stated NLP was not pseudo, then of course there needs to be some balance."

All this information was as available for researching to you and your colleagues here, as to me, Headley. It includes numerous formal clinical trials, tests under anaesthesia, through to scans of the impact of NLP on the human brain. On the usage side it includes a wide range of law enforcement, health, government bodies through to politics and clinical psychiatry. I haven't even begun starting on large scale corporate use. This was all openly visible with a few moments searching. The impression this leaves is that neither you nor your collegues made even the slightest competent attempt like any scientist should, instead you relied upon faith, POV editing, and personal attacks, and failed even to a minor degree to examine your preferred stance critically.

In conclusion, users are invited to please review and consider carefully the many cited researches and usages on the /Research page, and discuss its significance. Thank you. FT2 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. It does not matter how YOU present YOUR version of the story. That is your point of view. The fact is reputable scientists and psychotherapists have categorized NLP as pseudoscience. They have done so based on reviews of ALL the literature.

The scientific view is: NLP is scientifically unsupported, and therefore the wild claims of NLP proponents are completely wrong. The claims continue (and get more wild as the occult/sprituality gets more pronounced) and therefore NLP is pseudoscientific.

You are trying to stuff YOUR thesis on how YOU think NLP is completely supported on to the article. As such, everyone viewing this article is going to notice your desperation, and realise exactly how desperately biased you are towards NLP. HeadleyDown 09:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2. You are doing pretty badly on the research front. I had a good look at the Bolstad reference. Its pretty funny. Meet the chap in person . Not dodgy car salesmanlike at all!:)

Richard Bolstad is not a professor or practicing psychotherapist. He is an NLPer with a clear vested interest in promotion. His scientific sounding (but actually pseudoscientific) article is not published in a peer reviewed independent journal. He is simply writing psychobabble in order to promote his business.

He talks about spiritual transcendence, the natural languages of the brain, modalities (the same old NLP obscurantism), the pseudoscience of representational systems, and split brain myths as if they are absolute truths. He quotes all the supporting evidence (often out of context research from writers who have never even heard of NLP and if they did, they would probably just laugh it off).

He states that emotion affects the perception, but does not say practically to what extent. He talks about checking reality, but does not refer to proper empirical checks. He talks about mirror neurons to support rapport and mirroring, but he does not say exactly how unsupported mirror neurons are. They may exist, but they certainly do not support mirroring, they only might explain the chamelion EFFECT (not cause).

The references he uses are highly selective, often completely out of date (lots of it is debunked) and of course he treats Bandler and Grinder as supreme beings and gives them tons of airing.

Anyway, keep up the hard work; digging yourself into pseudoscience and cultish obscurity. HeadleyDown 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2, you are the biggest misquoter on this article. You actually wrote: "Prof. Lakoff also states "Even if by today's cognitive science research standards some of the original NLP research must be called inadequate, we now can classify NLP research projects as fitting in the field of cognitive science." Lakoff never wrote such a thing. Lakoff is not an NLP fanatic. The more you do this kind of thing, the more people will see you as a fanatic. HeadleyDown 10:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked FT2, and there are no references to NLP in Lakoff's book that you cite and of course nothing about cognitive science and NLP. HeadleyDown 11:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(Note: quote is taken from the intro to his book, citation was provided with quote FT2 11:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Look FT2, I noticed that you also misattributed the other lines to lakoff when in fact the NLP biased reviewer of his book wrote them. HeadleyDown 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The reviewer was biased. I should have known. And the other hundred or so citations? All biased too? Including the NHS, government, police and colleges? FT2 12:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh look, FT2. You continue to represent Sharpley by cutting off his conclusion. Remember that people are actually reading what you write. When you dump vast amounts of bias onto wikipedia, people are going to notice:) HeadleyDown 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I noticed your points above are kind of accusations. I think you are trying to mislead people.

Perhaps I should introduce. I am a therapist, and I came accross this site a while back. I did attend an NLP course a couple of years ago, and found it quite laughable considering all the other training I have received on counseling skills. Anyway, I read through the article and some things that had been nagging at the back of my mind have been well verified. My colleagues tend to call NLP a pseudoscience, and really its more of a motivational guru method. The skills they taught us were miserably simplistic. For example the rapport skills were pseudoscientifically explained (to the point where people laughed and choked on their coffee etc) and ineffective to the point of fostering mistrust. In short, NLP is ineffective and misleading.

Well, to solve that nagging feeling I had a good go through the library, made the relevant photocopies, and indeed, the article is extremely well researched. There are a few things missing, and Hans above seems to have pointed that out already. There are some useful French and German research papers that concur with the Sharpley conclusion (and yes, Sharpley says NLP fails, and is a cult and a fad).

Clearly, NLP is far more of a self help/stage hypnosis concern. It is indeed a fringe therapy concern also, and although I am sure NLP companies love to claim that they teach real therapists, most of those therapists would never boast of being an NLPer. Like myself, the certificate is consigned to the bin.

There are some NLP therapists (who love to claim they are real therapists) and all they do is talk nonsense about pragmatics as if pragmatics do not have a theory.

Certainly psychotherapists are quite alarmed at the amount of bogus therapists there are who charge lots of money for tapping away at your meridians, or waving their fingers in front of your eyes, or indeed doing NLP "changework" as if it is some kind of deep and meaningful method. Its not! It is entirely shallow and can quite reasonably be labeled fraudulent.

In short, the scientific research presented on this article is conclusively negative, and that is exactly factual, truthful and neutrally stated. The only reason for stating otherwise is to do what all NLP people like to do; to twist words and reframe things to make them sound like they have neuroscience, psychology, and the whole of the psychotherapy community supporting them. The more recent literature shows that the medical, psychology, and therapy community is very troubled by the ridiculous claims of NLP charlatans and pseudoscientists. From a global perspective, NLP is just stage hypnosis with some business marketing thrown in. It certainly is not psychology.

Anyway, I appreciate what the nonNLPers have none with the research here, and if I find some aspect of it to help clarify NLP in its rightful place as a messy and misleading pseudoscience, then I certainly will. Sincerely AMaulden 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2, thanks for that page it's great. Still reading. GregA 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi A,

I'm very glad you already knew how to do rapport, after all your personal therapy experience other training on counselling skills. I would hate to think any practicing therapist didn't have rapport skills. I don't know who you trained in NLP with or how long your training was, but I think some of the short courses are the worst for 'hype'... though that's only my own anecdotal experience, which seems to conform with yours?. NLP has some dodgy trainings, and some good ones, and I was lucky I chose a good one (as such I'd like to make sure others know that the quality of NLP courses is quite variable!). I notice you spoke about your own experience, but didn't actually respond to any of FT2's list of research and bodies which show respect to NLP... have you got any comments on those? GregA 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do get some very stupid psych bodies who allow NLPers to do therapy. Usually they are without degrees, and have learned NLP from a biz background in motivational hype. They go in completely unprepared for counseling or psychotherapy and screw people out of money and out of their mind. The course I attended was the best that you could buy, and followed Dilts and Bandler et al to the letter. Conclusion: NLP is just worthless pseudoscience. AMaulden 05:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of offending someone, my sock-puppet detector seems to be trying to get my attention round about now........ "AMaulden". Perhaps either way, now you've vented pointlessly, you might actually try commenting on the research itself? As we told Headley already, Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy, it's a place for neutral dispassionate summary of facts. The research page, as best we know it, is factual. Your venting is not. When you understand the difference, state a neutral view. Good day. FT2 06:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2, allow me to vent my view. NLP is most definitely just a lot of hot air. This has to be the most solidly referenced article I have ever seen on NLP. Most of what you read in the shops and adverts is about how NLP is all about science and geniuses and how to be superexcellent and they give nothing to back up their hype. They've been doing the same crap for decades and never deliver any reality on those wild whoppers they keep coming up with. Its so refreshing to read the views of proper psychologists here. Of course it is just about selling books and tickets. Looks to me like YOU have been sussed. Totally. JaseC 07:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

More sock-puppets....? Join the queue, you get taken seriously when you stop venting and comment on the actual research. Until then, read WP:NPOV, and WP:SOCK. Please join the line behind "AMaulden". FT2 09:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, FT2. Just because you post huge amounts of biased extra articles on wikipedia to try to negate the crushing reality effect of the main aricle, does not mean you can go bossing people around. I suggest you have a little more respect. I would allow you to go on insulting them, but I don't want this article discussion to seem too unwelcoming. HeadleyDown 10:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's considerate, Headley. Here's an alternative proposition for you and your suspected sock-puppets instead: explain away the rest of the research. FT2 12:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. In response to Headley's comment:

It does not matter how YOU present YOUR version of the story. That is your point of view. The fact is reputable scientists and psychotherapists have categorized NLP as pseudoscience. They have done so based on reviews of ALL the literature. HeadleyDown 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only wonder Headley - quite simply, for this to be true, the reviews you've referenced must reference EVERY article on FT2's page. AFAIK your reputable scientists are either focussed exclusively on PRS in 1988, or are book authors biased in their point of view (skeptics dictionary, watchman fellowship, science & pseudoscience authors, cult stuff). GregA 14:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, Greg, the research I have read is from highly regarded experts who are also practitioners (of psychotherapy or hypnotherapy or both). I see no reason to question their credibility, especially as they are clearly extremely good researchers (usually some kind of professor). Not only do they have a moral conscience to point out misconceptions, but they do it extremely convincingly. And no, its not just about PRS. The researchers also talk of various signs of pseudoscientific activity such as using holism to cover up failures, to hype using stories rather than directing attention to close examination of assumptions or testing their own methods scientifically. The reviewers tend to agree (including Heap) that the theory is wrong (and pseudo), the results are ineffective, and the hype continues with no real effort to advance the field. I have reported what they say as neutrally as I can, but sometimes the only thing you can do is state it exactly as they say (often harshly). Regards HeadleyDown 13:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Headley, in scientific form - I am questioning

1. their credibility (due often to their goals and target audience for their writings),
2. what they actually did (did they actually do some research or relying on some other? how did they review? what research? etc)
3. whether you are misrepresenting what they did (which so far has happened for most of the better sources)

I won't blindly accept any paper from anyone (nor does Misplaced Pages encourage that), nor will I blindly accept what you claim they say (you have earned quite the opposite respect). The goal is not to decide whether "your sources are better than mine", but to represent what's been said and done fairly.

Thanks GregA 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

occult and NPOV

I just removed a sentence that says NLP is used for "occult" practices. This sentence is in the part of the intro that is reporting the pro-NLP point of view. I find it highly unlikely that an advocate for anything would call their practices "occult". The "applications" for NLP that can be listed in the pro-NLP part of the intro must be from the main NLP advocates, and it must be sourced. This sentence reads more like it is coming from an anti-NLP critic and is being used to discredit NLP by saying "Look, see? They use NLP for occult ceremonies" or whatever. If that's the case, you must report this in the anti-NLP part of the intro, you must write it in the form of who said it, and you need to provide a URL, so someone else can verify you didn't stretch the truth in order to defame NLP people. Reporting from the source is required for NPOV policy. Providing a URL helps protect wikipedia against defamation lawsuits. And if you do not have a source for the term "occult", it is also violating "No Original Research" policy. FuelWagon 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

who is Jan Damen? Is he a critic or supporter of NLP? Is he an expert in the field in some way that we can report his view as expert testimony? A degree in psychotherapy? Since I can't read german, someone will have to translate the page for me. Also, if he is the only person who uses the word "occult" to describe NLP, someone will need to justify why the opinion of one man is not giving him "undue weight". Please read up on "undue weight" before replying. FuelWagon 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FuelWagon. As best I can determine from computer translation of the Dutch... Jan Damen says he got an article from a friend which referred to the "Cult Pocket Dictionary" by Rob Matzken (director of both "the Bible and Education Association" and "True Christians"). Besides terms such as Reiki, Gnomes, Yoga, Chakras and Halloween, it listed NLP. So he decided to see why Matzken put NLP in that list. He says the book quotes the bible alot and takes the words literally (which he says is debatable). He lists their definition of cult (I think he says "cults claim to expose secrets but are secret themselves" or similar, and that all the cults believe in supernatural, magic, astrology, and spiritualism etc, and such (assumed) strengths are applied to explain and/or master natural events). He then says the booklet says that "NLP uses several occult techniques under pseudo-scientific names such as regression technique (trance work in the past and even previous lives). It also says NLP does Out-of-Body experiences and puts people in a "positive-energy frenzy" - (which he has never experienced in all his NLP trainings and experience). Matzken and his spiritual brothers assume the following basic simple rules - If it is not in the bible or does not respect their explanation of the bible it is wrong; Life is suffering and if you want to change that it is wrong. Jan Damen says he hasn't experience what NLP is accused of, nor does he think their bible interpretation is the more general interpretation of the bible.

The article is really just referring to another intense Christian group and their beliefs. I don't know why Headley thought this was worth any more than any of the other cult/christian links like the watchman stuff.

Personally I was surprised that Yoga was in that list (but that's just me!). Certainly NLP doesn't teach out-of-body stuff, but I concede that some "timeline" guys talk about past lives (though when I've heard or read that, it always also says "It doesn't matter what's true, just what you believe in this context which we're going to explore"). I assume the positive frenzy is like some of those LGATs Headley keeps saying are NLP - I've never experienced them in an NLP context though what I've seen was using some very effective language, anchoring, and belief change patterns (whether conscious or unconscious), patterns that I recognised because I've been NLP trained to recognise them. Hope the above helps GregA 22:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

disputed claims and sources

I also just removed a sentence that said "NLP has also been identified by the British Psychological Society as quintessential charlatanry (Parker 1999).". This was tagged by someone as being dubious. If this statement is untrue, it exposes wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit. Given how severe this sentence is, and given the penalties that could occur if it is actually wrong, it needs to be removed until it can be verified to be true. Before reinserting this claim, please provide a URL so that others can verify the accuracy of the sentence. Once again, a name in parenthesis does not cut it for wikipedia's requirements of verifiability. Please familiarize yourselves with wikipedia policy on NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability. FuelWagon 16:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a dubious/dispute tag on the Sanghera newspaper article. Voice of All has removed it and it now says "Critics say that NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudo-science that uses jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions (Sanghera, 2005)."

I still dispute that for 3 reasons:

1. the wording is highly emotional and interpretative
2. the quality of the source is questionable
3. I think it misrepresents quality scientific/research based critics.

Perhaps there are 2 types of critics - those that emotionally attack NLP (eg Sanghera, Platt, Morgan, Carrol), and those that dispassionately research NLP (eg Druckman, Sharpley). And there are many in the middle (eg Singer, Lilienfield).

Does anyone else think the whole quote is dubious? GregA 22:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sanghera is stating a common set of criticisms. It is entirely representative. It does come from a reliable source (The Financial Times) and gives a great account of someone's view of the subject.JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers are not reliable sources. One way of thinking about it is the time and effort that goes into a reference (research has a huge time investment, as do books, newspaper articles and websites are rather small-time really). Another way is to judge is whether there is a financial incentive to present a certain POV (eg for better sales). And lastly a consideration of who the readers are and how their reactions will alter the quality of the article. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

VoiceofAll has removed my dubious tag in another sentence by adding the word "often".

"NLP has often been characterised gullibility, naivety of thinking, and sheer fraudulence (Heap 1991)."

I think this needs to be hugely clarified. Heap had earlier said negative things in conjunction with positive things... in 1988 it seemed he wished to present things fairly (but he was easy to misquote too!). Perhaps this should be attributed to a group (especially "fraudulence"). What do others think? GregA 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully :-)...). I also noticed that you dispute:

Remember what happened during the late 80s and early 90s. Tony Robbins and a whole lot of therapists dumping NLP because it was debunked! Heap is demostrating his conclusive view. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll really have to clear up how Anthony Robbins relates to NLP. Especially when Headley has been pushing the Robbins does LGAT's in the criticisms, and you guys are criticising Tony Robbins for doing NLP under the name NAC (as opposed to your criticism above the Robbins dumped NLP entirely). Perhaps Tony Robbins needs a subheading of his own?

Apart from that lets focus on representing what was said - that means finding a way of showing what we both have read from the same article, fairly and accurately. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some NLP training programs used in the business sector have received complaints for being coercive. There were some complaints of undue and forced adoption of fundamental beliefs and intense confrontational psychological techniques, tantamount to a forced religious conversion (Singer 1995)."

This is correct. I have the photocopy of that page. Singer (RIP) was a world authority on cults and manipulation and like a lot of psychologists was repelled by how people tried to get business employees to be really cheerful about having their livelihoods threatened during the "downsizingfest" of the 90s. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See my response earlier, below - I'm not debating that Singer said this. I'm debating whether he attempts to be representative of business complaints and just how minor it is. Looks like Singer and I are both repelled by anyone trying to get an employee to be cheerful while downsizing... have you got a relevant point about that? GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I cant find this on the research subpage however.Voice of All 23:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(Don't assume that because it's not there it does, or does not, exist. There is a huge body of research, I've had to say "enough is enough" in listing it. FT2 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Well I need to know what is wrong with so I know whethor to leave it or take out the digital scissors ;-).Voice of All 23:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. Your changes are appreciated. Please do not be conned into pasting NLP promoter's cuttings into the article. For the most part they have the conclusive statements missing from the paragraph. Your last edits in the science section had those problems. Its completely forgivable considering the literature is actually very large and difficult to get through. The conclusions that neutral editors post into the article have been taken from multiple sources and they concur with each other. The latest literature states that NLP is wrong, unsupported, ineffective etc and cites Druckman, Heap, VonBergen, and Sharpley 97, amongst others. They all use the conclusions that NLP is scientifically unsupported. None of them say there are limitations, because Sharpley has already established that there are no limitations. I have been trying to keep to that very neutral statement (scientifically unsupported), but as you may have noticed, any cutting from the middle of paragraphs by the promoters will tend to lead to me having to paste the actual harsh conclusive statements of scientists. Regards HeadleyDown 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOFAll, perhaps I should explain further. Heap and Druckman did not take Sharpley's 1987 paper into account when considering Einspruchs criticism of the review. Recent reviews do take Sharpley 87 into account. They state that NLP is pseudoscience, fraudulent, grossly misleading etc. They also say that Einspruch and Formann are putting the burden of proof on the testers, rather than the claimers. That is a pseudoscientific argument. The burden of proof should always be on the people claiming to give 10 minute phobia cures etc. Of course, NLP promoters never provided reliable proof (just stories pseudoscientific explanations and more hype - according to Lilienfeld, Singer, Eisner etc). Regards HeadleyDown 04:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOfAll. (Is there a way I can mark something as dubious and explain why I marked it that way?)

I added the "Some" to the beginning of the sentence "NLP training programs used in the business sector... (are like)... forced religious conversion (Singer)". My concern was (and is) that we don't have any idea whether this is based on 1 complaint, hundreds, 1%, 100% etc. If you look at the research page under "Recognition by other bodies" - in particular "NLP is used in management and staff training by:" I think this represents a lot of respected business bodies who endorse NLP courses in some way. The negative stuff is significant minority but the perception of negative stuff may be more common and as such should be reflected in the article appropriately.

Standard disclaimer of course... that NLP processes can be used by any group in any way, and sometimes this is interpreted as a reflection on NLP rather than the person who used it (like saying that Tae Kwon Do is a method of bullying etc). GregA 02:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If you could, you would probably mark science as dubious. JPLogan 02:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A nice vague remark and totally meaningless. Is there something specific I've said that warrants that? Anything unfairly represented is disputable. GregA 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown reversion

I've posted to HeadleyDown's talk page directly regarding his recent large reversion to the NLP article. FuelWagon 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Its pretty simple, FuelWagon. If you have lots of people advocating a large collection of points, and someone makes huge changes to the article, you can pretty much expect reversion. Especially as you make changes that are completely unreasonable and quite censorious. HeadleyDown 17:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't censorship, HeadleyDown. This is all about policy. You continuously violate NPOV, No Original Reseach, Verifiability, and Undue Weight. These are all wikipedia policies on how to write an article. You haven't followed any of them. Until you do, your personally biased edits in direct violation of policy will be reverted. FuelWagon 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2. I have seen your large collection of information. I notice that a great deal of it is completely wrongly marked, strategically arranged, and similar to your efforts on this article, some of the conclusively negative statements are censored. I see your large set of biased remarks as a massive piece of evidence that you are probably even more biased than Tony Robbins. It is very clear that you simply want to promote NLP. JPLogan 02:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

... and yet you've done little other than complain in general about them. How about actually checking out the research described yourself instead of complaining? Or are you saying all 100 abstracts are inaccurate? Its a shame that for a scientific person, you are unable to approach it scientifically as others do. I'd like a citation from a reputable scientist or journal of each one you claim is not taken seriously, thanks. Otherwise don't bother. FT2 03:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also that if you wish to write your neutral assessment of FT2's collection of notes, you will probably have it removed from that page by FT2, even though FT2 has pasted his own pro-NLP POV all over the page. HeadleyDown 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I find that an amazingly good idea of FT2's, it keeps the discussion on this page where we can all see. There's atleast one editor who seems to deliberately want to make a response harder to track or follow (you may not know who I'm talking about) so I think this is a good idea. GregA 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Accusation of POV

Could everyone please stop accusing the other side of POV, as it is by no means helpful; lets just try to edit this article and if talk doesn't work, then I will try to come up with a compromise that still support Wiki policy(NPOV).

Also, please change only ONE section at a time. Thank you.Voice of All 05:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, VoiceOfAll. I did also come to that conclusion. I re-posted the information that admits NLP and other pseudosciences such as Dianetics, EFT, and EMDR have also been listed as being used within psychology associations. This is simply to clarify, balance and frame the criticisms properly. regards HeadleyDown 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOFAll. I noticed you removed the concluding statement from Sharpley 87. I think you are completely justified in doing so. The reason it was placed there was because an NLP promoter kept placing a selectively edited and inconclusive discussion statement from Sharpley within the opening criticism section. I certainly agree with keeping the article brief. Novelty in Sharpley's paper would refer to the wild claims of "new improved" or "new theraputic magic" etc. The Sharpley conclusion may well have to go back there sometime in future in order to fend off the selective editing of NLP promoters. I can remove the bit that says "novelty" in future though if you like. Regards HeadleyDown 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing will be added to "fend-off" anyone. However I will try to get the intro NPOV and keep it that way.Voice of All 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Great VoiceOfAll! I'll help you keep it NPOV. Regards HeadleyDown 05:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voice of All. I'm thinking that most of our comments or reversions involve a claimed attempt by ourselves to be more NPOV (and hence "they're using POV"... Am I right to assume that what you're asking is for us not to use "NPOV" as an explanation, rather spell out any reasoning for change, in detail?

As for one section at a time - might I suggest we do any major change to opening/overview last so they can reflect whatever NPOV we've come to in the other sections? GregA 08:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and in light of POV - Headley, you always call us "pro", and presuppose you are the "neutral editors" (we call you anti). Labelling yourself Neutral doesn't make you less biased... in fact it may do the opposite.

Well you have all had a busy weekend. OK VoA, I'll do my best to calm the sarcasm gland in the interests of the article. CheersDaveRight 02:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Research Subpage

You need to add a bibliography with complete citations. As it currently stands the abstracts are incomplete. One of the purposes of citation is to allow the possibility of review by other parties. This objective cannot be fulfilled because you have not provided complete citations (i.e. author(s) fullname, name of publication, edition). flavius 07:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. To add a bibliography would go against the promotional editor's purpose. If you could check the actual research, you would come to the same conclusion as all the other neutral editors. NLP is pseudoscientific, wrong in theory and application, and misleading (kindly put; scientifically unsupported and pseudoscientific). The most conclusive and encyclopedic evidence is already on the article page, and you are welcome to check it out. If you spend your time looking through the inconclusive refs presented on the alternative research page, you would just go round in circles. The burden of proof rests upon the NLP promoters, and they have not presented any evidence for NLP's principles or claimed efficacy. The most basic conclusion of recent reliable researchers is that NLP is scientifically unsupported. No need to take my word for it. Regards HeadleyDown 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I quickly reviewed FT2's truncated abstracts and citations and I offer the following observations: (a) at least some are not sourced from reputable, peer-reviewed journals; and (b) most of the summaries are replete with vague and imprecise quantificational language (eg. "most helpful", "positive correlation" (magnitude?), "partially positive effects", "strongly related", "marked improvement", "positive reduction", "deeper trance", "substantially", "very helpful", "enormous changes", "very many of the people" etc.). The use of such vague language is evidence of methodological defect. I have reviewed some of the cited literature and I too am of the view that NLP is largely -- if not entirely -- without substance, ineffective (beyond non-specific factors) and without any scientific basis. flavius 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's unfortunate Headley.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not just if a person is presenting supporting evidence. I note also that you presuppose the references presented are "inconclusive", yet rather than opening debate you encourage not talking about them. Flavius is right to ask for expanded information before something is put into the main article, and to request that information. The recognition by other groups looks well cited, the papers give researcher, year, but some give the journal, title, some don't. GregA 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, it seems that promoters are behaving pseudoscientifically. They seem to be placing the burden on scientists to prove NLP works. Not only that, but they want to take each minor study, and work their own thesis (AKA pov) that NLP is actually supported by science. I don't mind discussing it, but really if you want to be conclusive, all you have to do is go to the conclusions of the reviewers (overviewers). Your own conclusions are completely inappropriate. Remember NPOV states that the article should not include your own work. If you want to state that your own review negates the reviews of the other scientists then really you should not be editing. HeadleyDown 08:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Greg, Headley's stance is consistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence and the consensus of scientific opinion. All of the literature reviews on NLP that I have seen (and that are quoted in the article) arrive at the position that Headley is advancing. We are treading well-worn paths and performing our own literature review or meta-analyses is entirely inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. My point to FT2 was that if (s)he is going to cite research s(he) should provide full, well-formed citations. Nothing more. I apologise if my response in any way indicated that the "jury was still out" on NLP. I refer you to this exhaustive literature review on EMDR because (a) it is online; (b) EMDR is often claimed by the NLP community as being derived from NLP; (c) NLP (specifically VK dissociation) is mentioned; (d) it is illustrative of how pseudoscience and bunkum becomes institutionalised; (e) you will find many of the NLP proponents tactics regarding unfavourable scientific review coming also from EMDR proponents; and (d) it clearly explains the problem of substantiation and evidence regarding therapeutic interventions. See http://www.drexel.edu/academics/coas/psychology/papers/herbertscience.pdf. flavius 08:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Flavius. Yes, EMDR and indeed elements of EFT and other such pseudoscientific confections are closely associated with NLP. I was thinking earlier, that actually one of the most telling signs for NLP's pseudoscientificness is the theories (and yes they do talk theory) and hypotheses they propose. Not only are many of them completely conflicting but they are often on the perifery of science and have been debunked. Actually, I would like to look more at the EMDR literature as it is another really interesting (the eyes have it) kind of pseudoscience. Anyway, I'm glad you have an understanding of science. I think you can expect a sockpuppet label pretty soon though. Every other science savvy editor here has got the sockpuppet label so far (apart from VoiceOfAll). How does he do it?:)HeadleyDown 12:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Flavius. I believe you have hit on an extremely enlightening article. Perhaps I have become too accustomed to NLP to see it's pseudoscientific novelty, but this article about EMDR really does offer a fresh perspective.

I suppose I should get straight to how it relates to this article. The research supporting EMDR is as the clinicians say - superficial. It is interesting how they present it as a kind of cost-benefit ratio, with all the benefit going to the charlatans and the cost going to the client and the field of clinical psychotherapy. I can see more about why they are so troubled by the mantra of eclecticism. Its almost like that word "holistic".

The collection of trauma fixing techniques is really very telling and reminiscent of Dianetics (which grew mostly out of the claim to remove traumas). I did attend a newsgroup that actually claimed to do power therapies such as EFT, and they were as deluded as Dianetics proponents even to the extent that reading the word "cancer" could give you that illness. Basically, the reason it spreads is due to the neurotic perspectives that it fosters. The same could be said of NLP and its use of "negative energy deflection shields" that people place around themselves to deflect negative energies (a wholly pseudoscientific idea due to energy never physically being negative anyhow).

The excuses for NLP and EFT and Dianetics seem to be very similar. They all adhere to the notion that cures can be obtained fast, but also be undone fast. This is not a notion that is recognized in any other kind of therapy. You tap on a meridian (or change a submodality or reframe) and you are done. Then someone comes along and undoes it and you have to start again.

The decision of the APA is troubling considering how pseudo these kind of techniques are (troubling according to Eisner, and Lilienfield amongst others). Anyway, this is a good comparison, and has certainly clarified things for me. Certainly it seems that NLP is just as, if not more so pseudoscientific. As NLP is more popular as a self help technique, it also seems to be introducing the public to pseudoscience and a reinforcing a wide range of popular misconceptions. Regards HeadleyDown 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick replies:

• Flavius - When you are faced with a huge mountain of information there is a limit to what one can type. Your point is well taken, and insofar as if this was the actual wikipedia page it would be cited differently, I agree. However, I am a shortage of manpower, and you will have to look up some of the research for yourself to double check its quality. My purpose in posting that information is to demonstrate that there is in fact widespread use of, and positive views on, NLP, by credible bodies, and that the present research grossly misrepresents the field. In many cases the academic papers were published but I had not typed a formal location. They are none the less traceable and can therefore meet WP:V for verifiability. Despite this, some I have added sources regardless. The non research uses, which are arguably the more important since they are evidence that NLP is used in practice, are all 100% cited. That is all.
• Second, have you or anyone else, anyone noticed that certain editors are trying to ignore them as fast as possible, with wide generalizations, rather than investigating those which are sourced? There's enough of them, and if you cared you could find citations and abstracts for the rest. FT2 10:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A quick reply of my own... and I see you've just written what I was going to say FT2....

I find it quite disconcerting how unwilling Headley et al are to even discuss the science supporting NLP.

And FT2, thank you for the time you've put into this. GregA 10:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Again Greg, from the research presented (including that part which is presented on the alternative research page) NLP is scientifically unsupported. I really believe it is not my part to discuss evidence that experts such as Heap, Sharpley, Morgan, Lilienfeld, Singer, Drenth, Levelt, and a good many more there and to be added, have already discussed with the conclusion that NLP is unsupported and pseudoscience. Perhaps you will hear a different view from someone else, but it is already clear that NLP is pseudoscientific from theory to results to excuses. Regards HeadleyDown 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Disconcerting but not suprising. Did you know that a lot of web geeks used to play 'dungeons and dragons' when they were kids and now see the web as some kind of substitute game. 'Really', 'actually', 'mostly' I suspect they don't really care about the article at all. Just hanging out under a bridge sort-of-thing Faxx 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP not a science? What about behavioral psychology? What about "Human Development", Social Science, and Medicine?

The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences." It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page, and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics. The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.) They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works. If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change. The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.

The editors of this fine 💕 (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists. ( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.) Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.

One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.

When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)

Recently, for the first time, a science journal has published a series of articles in which a number of leading practitioners agreed that the abuse of a child has profound affects upon the mental health of the adult they grow up to be. For thirty or forty years, this fact was obvious to the clinicians and therapists and only now has it come out because of the "collapse of the ((mental)) health system". At the last minute, apparently, it's time to get real. If this single idea gets more support, and after the usual years of nattering and peer reviews find it indeed true, then things will have to change. The first thing that might change for the better is the American judicial system which holds that the plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a form of malingering. The Shrinks sold out all of the accused in the 1970's and the prisons have filled up with "criminals" suffering from one of the many disorders and psychoses found in that three-lettered big book.

For those who want to debunk NLP as "non-scientific" ask them to describe the science in advanced physics. Note that most of the verbage in a science that gave us the nuclear age was, and is still, largely only theoretical. As are most of the other cutting-edge and rapidly emerging sciences. And this is a "hard science", not a "soft science" like most of the other disiplines we call science which are not much more than huge collections of theoretical exercises.

My criteria is, "does it work?" when applied in the clinic, and can it be repeated by others with predictable results. If the answer is yes, then it's probably a science (a form of academic politics). If it doesn't work, one stops trying to use it, and goes on to something else. And that's why we don't hear much about some of the "human development" studies.

For those who use the pet phase "cult", I ask them only to stop shooting themselves in the foot with that word. Go look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and find out it means merely "a small group." And we know that all science is emerging from a "cult" -- a small group of people -- because the general public, largely semi-literate and poorly educated can't even handle their native language, let alone the jargon that attempts to clarify the esoteric meanings of many scientific insights.

I think that all this "by-pass charge" ( a useful cult term) about NLP comes from people who are threatened by the concepts (I call them the Golden Lies) of NLP which start with "You create your own reality." Now, let's see them argue with that phrase... I hope I have another page to reply.

Thank you all for being there,ignoramuses, nitpickers, mismatchers, and skeptics alike. Without your nagging, we might just sail off the edge of the world.

W.H. Bowart Author, Operation Mind Control

Hi W.H.Boward. Thanks. That reminds me of a criticism I read from a French author about NLP's loaded language. Loaded language is something that is commonly used in cults and organizations that use mind control . It is something that makes it hard to recover from cults. Its not some kind of special mind power thing, its just a way to take someone's view of themself or view of humanity, and dirty it enough to put undue fear and restriction into them. Its also a way to put fear into your peers. "This person is a mismatcher, they do not fully see things our way!" And relating to pseudoscience, I wonder how skeptical Einstein was about the nazi promotion of the "sciences" of phrenology, eugenics and physiognomy? HeadleyDown 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello WHBoward. I think a little more reality with your map might help. Nuclear theories have led to nuclear fission reactors powering whole countries and economies. Comparing that will NLP is somewhat of a joke. Also, surely your view of humanity is quite negative. You speak of the common people unable to handle their native language and unable to comprehend science. Funny, because I grew up in the country and most natives speak exactly their own language. The language belongs to them, and no amount of Hubbardesque conspiracy writing will convince them otherwise. What's more, they know snakeoil flim flam when they hear it. You see it on the TV on an infomercial, and you know for sure its just garbage. Actually, the people going for cults and NLP are actually fairly similar and have a similarly good level of education. But what they also have in common, is that they are often shiftless and insecure. When I came to this artile I thought cult meant personality cult rather than destructive or nuisance cult. You and other proNLPers here are convincing me otherwise. AliceDeGrey 05:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Boward's post addressed with inline commentary flavius 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC):

'The "Syntax" system derived from "eye patterning" movements is more of a science than anything found in the sheeple herding "sciences" of sociology or behavioral psychology or so many other supposed "sciences."'

This is problematic for several reasons: (1) it is nothing more than a bold assertion. Do you have any evidence -- in the form of peer reviewed research reults -- that demonstrates the validity of NLPs eye accessing cues theory? (2) it appears that you are operating from an idiosyncratic (and self-serving) definition of 'science'; (3) there is no such field as 'behavioral psychology'. Psychology is -- by definition -- the study of behavior so the phrase behavioral psychology' is redundant not unlike 'brain neurology'.

Hi Flavius - just for the record there was a high behavioural focus in psychology (watson/skinner) and psychologists (at least in the 90s) mainly called them "behaviourists", though they were also understood as behavioural psychologists. They still differentiate different forms of psychology, such as Cognitive Psychology, etc. I'm not sure if Boward had something specific in mind, just saying there is behavioural psych (look it up online if you have any doubts). GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'It looks like the "skeptics" (mismatchers in NLP lingo) got hold of this page,'

This is troubling. It is a form of ad hominem and it is redolent of the Scientology notion of 'Suppressive Person' in terms of function i.e. automatically discounting all criticism and defining an "out group".

It would be better not to label anyone skeptic/critic/proNLP/antiNLP/supporter/neutral/etc. At the moment there are people discouraging reading the research with similar arguments GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'and we all know that most scientists who've had breakthrough ideas are not skeptics.'

This is another bold assertion without any substantiation. From my reading of the history of science this is an entirely false assertion. The common trait of all of the great scientists is scpeticism i.e. a tendency to question everything and not accept it as true without due evidence and explanation. Albert Einstein's general relativity can be understood as an outgrowth of a sceptical disposition towards Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation. The work of Galileo Galilei represents a scepticsm and challenge of the Aristotlian concpeption of the natural world. Nicolaeus Copernicus heliocentric theory of the solar system was a direct challenge to the Ptolemaic geocentric view. When James Clark Maxwell formulated his now famous (eponymous) equations he corrected Ampere's law. In formulating the germ theory Louis Pasteur challenged the prevailing notion of spontaneous generation. I can list many more such examples. All of the preceding scientists were highly sceptical else they would not have been prompted to demonstrate the inadequacy of an existing theory via argumentation and/or experimentation. Can you demonstrate -- with reference to actual examples of scientific deiscovery -- that this is not the case?

Agreed - skeptical enquiry is a great trait for a scientist. Cynical is not. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'The top scientists are visionaries (matchers in NLP lingo.)'

No, not necessarily. Michael Faraday -- for example -- was a great scientist though he was not visionary. Faraday was distinguished as a brilliant scientist by his inquisitive nature and ability to devise ingenious experiments to test his hypotheses. 'Vision' is less associated with science and more with echnology. Scientists generally don't labour with a clear and specific conception of the future in mind. Also, this 'matcher'/'mismatcher' dichotomy is intellectually (and epistemologically) bankrupt. The universe is not that simple.

'They have an idea, then they try to prove that it works.'

No, that is how pseudoscientists operate. Scientists formulate a hypothesis and then design an experiment to attempt to falsify that hypothesis. This is a truism amongst scientists. If I formulated the hypothesis that 'all swans are white' I wouldn't test that by seeking white swans. Instead I'd seek black swans. Finding white swans would not have the intended effect of proving my hypothesis.

Well.. they have an idea, they elaborate and build it to fit all the facts they know of, then they (and others) try to falsify it. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. flavius 09:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla Flavour, What are you saying I don't understand? Please be clearer on where you're pulling this from GregA 10:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'If a scientist maintains a skeptical point of view they will most likely not be inclined to think outside the box, they will most likely not come up with the new ideas needed for innovation and change.'

In the absence of scpeticism science would stagnate. Scientists publish their results and methodology for the purpose of critical review and reproduction. Other scientists attempt to reproduce published results -- and thereby grow the body of scientific knowledge -- because they are of a scpetical disposition, they do not blindly accept the results of a novel piece of research. Can you cite any advances in science that took place as a result of uncritical accpetance of a result?

'The strongest argument that NLP is a science is (after looking at the NLP system) one looks at the neurological studies done by Karl Pribram and others at UCLA. Add to this the MRI studies done with sufferers of "multiple personality disorder", now called "dissociative Identity Disorder." Pribram's findings about the behavior of the brain, when it "switches" from one personality to another, matches the NLP model which preceded Pribram's finding and the MRI results.'

This in no way establishes NLP as a science. Also, it appears that you are operating from an impoverished map of the universe. You appear to be conflating 'science' with 'technology'. Also, the concepts that define the traditional demarcation between science and pseudoscience are derived from the works of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos. Central to the meaning of science are the characteristics of 'falsifiability' and 'disconfirmation'. Lakatos also distinguised science by its 'progressive research program'. NLP makes many unfalsifiable claims, it has little if any predictive power, and its research program is degenerating therefore it is pseudoscience. (I can elaborate on this matter if necessary).

'The editors of this fine 💕 (a People's Encyclopedia -- what a concept) might find a way to filter out the disinformation and misinformation which flows from nay-sayers, debunkers, and cover artists.'

This attitude is symptomatic of a degenerating research program (which is a characteristic of pseudoscience). A research program is deemed 'progressive' if it at least sometimes produces new predictions that are confirmed. It is deemed as degenerating if it fails to lead to new and confirmed predictions. That is to say, in a progressive research program theoretical predictions successfully anticipate new data. In a degenarting research program the data precedes the theory, there is data "in search of a theory", post hoc explanations abound. An example of this is the addition of the notion of meta-programs to NLP, specifically to 'cognitive strategies'. When it was discovered that individuals with identical strategies presented fundamental differences the notion of meta-programs was postulated to prevent the falsification of the 'cognitive stragetgies' theory (see http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html2/MdMe26.html).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in science, if at any time the evidence falsifies a theory, the theory is modified and it is then, once again, tested. Sometimes a theory can not be modified, or there are so many add-ons and exceptions that the theory becomes unlikely, and if it's a strongly held theory there may be a paradigm shift. Anyway... I would have thought that the discovery of something the strategy model didn't account for and an extension to the theory would be quite normal, don't you think? GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Lakatos addresses this concern. Lakatos conceptualises a "research program" as being comprised of a "hard core" of very general hypotheses and a "protective belt" of specific auxiliary hypotheis. According to Lakatos, experimentation and falsification is directed at the protective belt because only it is comprised of sufficiently specific hypothesis that are capable of being tested. Meta-programs are not a more specific form of what already existed in NLP, they are entirely disconnected from everything else in NLP. Empirical testing amongst the first generation NLPers showed that strategies had absolutely no predictive power: people with the same strategy for skill X produced widely varying results. If NLPs theory of cognitive strategies were itself revised then we could conceivably regard that as the addition of auxiliary hypothesis to the protective belt. However, Leslie Cameron-Bandler instead postulated another component of the NLP model of the mind in an ad hoc fashion. This is an entirely evasive manouveur designed to illegitimately save cognitive strategies from falsification. Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist? I haven't seen any. Have you? flavius 10:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. First let me thank you for your specific answer addressing my question, I appreciate it. Now to the question "Is there any evidence that meta-programs exist?" - interesting because my NLP training says "No", my Psychology training says "Yes"... which is rather counter-intuitive :). The NLP school I went to does not subscribe to metaprograms mainly because they classify people as a personality type. While there is value in that because (once classified) you can then use some standard responses and processes for that type, it also removes the value of calibrating specifically to an individual and working with whatever is presented (ie. metaprograms can be a case of "work out which they are, then administer process" rather than dynamically interactive). My psych background involved alot of personality tests where this kind of classification was very common, and the scoring on different personality traits was linked to competency requirements in jobs to determine probably job-personality match (in conjunction with other measurements from resume, ability tests, assessment centres, etc). Most occupational psychologists are going to say that we do have personality traits based on the "Big 5" that were found many years back. Metaprograms are sometimes linked directly to the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicators). Also, the BPS has endorsed some personality tests based on metaprograms (). An ongoing disagreement between NLP and Psych on metaprograms would _probably_ be the variability of personality traits - NLP argues they can be changed, psych argues they are relatively fixed (though as I said, I haven't trained much in metaprograms). GregA 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

'( NLP has deep roots in the cryptocracy's MKUltra programs. I am lumping them together under the MKU umbrella, rather than name all the programs that spanned 70 years or so.)'

The roots of NLP are well documented, refer to http://users.pandora.be/merlevede/nlpfaqc3.htm and Grinder's 'Whispering in the Wind'. I'm quite familiar with NLP and its history, there is no evidence for your wild claim.

'Once you understand that NLP is a super form of hypnosis ( modeled by Grinder and Bandler, in part, upon the practices of Milton H. Erickson, a scientist, a psychiatrist, a hypnotherapist, and a brilliant mind, great wit, and generous friend) is one of many names for an emerging science, one that comes out of the clinics where people are being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (the VA gives drugs only), and the pandemic of disorders that (study your Marshall McLuhan) may be the result of technological influences.'

The above sentence is unparseable, i.e. it is ungrammatical. Also, many of the 'misnmatchers'/sceptics such as myself have had NLP training and are familiar with the primary NLP works (Magic I&II, Patterns I&II, Tranceformations and 'Frogs into Princes').

'One of the foremost specialists in psychiatry exclaimed, upon meeting me for the first time at a conference in Santa Barbara: "This country has gone mad..." I was amazed that he recognized this, not because of any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his conditioning in medical school. When I thought about it, I remembered that he had been educated, and had practiced for many years, in a foreign country and therefore could think outside the AMA box.'

A paragraph earlier you characterised Milton Erickson as a "brilliant" mind. Erickson was educated in the North American University system, gained a degree in medicine and a post-graduate qualification in pscychiatry. He also practiced. How is it that your suspicion does not extend to Erickson. Similarly, both Grinder and Bandler were educated in North American universities. Also, the "subtext" of the above is that your behavior prompted the foremost specialist in psychiatry" to exclain "This country has gone mad". David Icke (the man that believes that amongst others George Bush, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum, Bob Hope and Kris Kristofferson are shape shifting reptiles) wasn't part of this conference was he? Who was this unnamed 'foremost specialist in psychiatry'?

'When you think about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, you realize that it's largely a sorting mechanism, tagging a variety of transitory conditions with a variety of names, and having the bias of attempting to find pharmaceutical treatments with drugs for symptoms, masking the cause of the symptom, making life hard on clients and health care providers, and easy on the insurance companies who are represented on the panels which decide what will and will not go into any particular edition. (For example, compare the DSM-III with the DSM- IV.)'

How is chronic depression "transitory"? The symptoms and phenomenology of mental illnesses such as depression, paranoid-schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and phobia are largely consistent within the same person and between different people (and even different cultures) and they are clustered consistently. You appear to be alluding to the common NLP "article of faith" that menatal illness is a nominalisation (in a somewhat incoherent manner). There is no evidence that mental illness is merely a nominalisation.

Headley said some stuff about nominalisations and theories contradicting NLP and I enquired about what had been said. He wasn't able to answer, but perhaps you know of some stuff I can read about nominalisations (outside of NLP theory). Certainly I would say that some mental illnesses are approached as a disease that someone has, rather than a cognitive process, and that that will affect how it is treated. GregA 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP nominalizations come from a debunked (even during the 60s) linguistic relativism perspective. That should be clear enough to anyone that NLP proponents are just taking a bunch of jargon and hyping it up to an unsubstantiated pragmatic method (that fails). Bookmain 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a start in the explanation. Do you know of any psych research on the use of either deliberate nominalisation, or deliberate denominalisation? I'm far more interested in the psych research of what works than in the linguistic background. Greg 203.217.56.137 07:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)